QL 


I9io 


Jttemoram 

WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 
1848-1908 


THE   JOURNAL 


OF 


EXPERIMENTAL   ZOOLOGY 


EDITORIAL    BOARD 


WILLIAM  E.  CASTLE 

Harvard  University 

EDWIN  G.  CONKLIN 

Princeton  University 

CHARLES  B.  DAVENPORT 

Carnegie  Institution 

HORACE  JAYNE 

The  Wistar  Institute 

HERBERT  S.  JENNINGS 

JolniB  H<>:  '-i'y 

EDMI;ND  B.  \\'IL*ON,  Col' 

and 


FRANK  R.  LILLIE 

University  of  Chicago 

JACQUES  LOEB 

The  Rockefeller  Institute 

THOMAS  H.  MORGAN 

Columbia  University 

GEORGE  H.  PARKER 

Harvard  University 

CHARLES  O.  WHITMAN 

University  of  Chicago 
ia  University 


O.   JlAKlUSON,  Yale  University 
Managing  Editor 


VOL.  9    No.  1 
SEPTEMBER,  1910 

PUBLISHED  EIGHT  TIMES  A  TEAR  BY 

THE  WISTAR  INSTITUTE  OF  ANATOMY  AND  BIOLO< 
36TH  STREET  AND  WOODLAND  AVENUE 
PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 


E. -tared  as  second-class  matter  May  28,  1909 


,  at  the  Post  Office  at  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  under  Act  of  March  3 


THE 

WILLIAM  KEITH   BROOKS 
MEMORIAL  VOLUME 

(Volume  9) 
of  the 

Journal  of  Experimental   Zoology 

Will  be  issued  in  four  numbers  during  the  latter  half 
of  1910.  It  will  include  over  900  pages,  with  numerous 
plates  and  text  figures. 

This  volume  will  contain  a  biographical  sketch  of 
Professor  Brooks,  edited  by  Professor  H.  V.  Wilson,  with 
several  portraits,  in  addition  to  a  large  number  of  scientific 
papers  by  some  of  Professor  Brooks'  most  distinguished 
American  and  foreign  students. 

The  edition  of  this  volume  will  be  sufficient  to  supply 
the  special  subscriptions  which  have  been  received  in 
addition  to  the  regular  subscribers  to  the  Journal  of 
Experimental  Zoology. 

SUBSCRIPTION  PRICE,  $5.00          FOREIGN,  $5.50 

Additional  copies  may  be  secured  by  sending  orders 
promptly  to  the  Wistar  Institute  of  Anatomy  and  Biology, 
36th  Street  and  Woodland  Avenue,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 
U.  S.  A. 

(SEE  FOLLOWING  PAGES  FOR  COMPLETE  CONTENTS) 


Lft. 

•v 


WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  EXPERIMENTAL  ZOOLOGY 
Contents  of  the  Brooks  Memorial  Volume 

E.  A.  ANDREWS 

Zoological  Department,  Johns  Hopkins  University 

Conjugation  in  the  crayfish,  Cambarus  affinus.    Eight  figures. 
ROBERT  PAYNE  BIGELOW 

Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology 

A  comparison  of  the  sense  organs  in  medusae  of  the  family  Pelagidae. 

Thirty-eight  figures. 
HUBERT   LYMAN   CLARK 

Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology,  Harvard  University 

The  development  of  an  apodous  holothurian  (Chiridota  rotifera).     Six 

figures. 
EDWIN  G.  CONKLIN 

Department  of  Biology,  Princeton  University 

The  effects  of  centrifugal  force  upon  the  organization  and  development  of 

the  eggs  of  fresh  water  pulmonates.     Forty-four  figures. 
R.  P.  COWLES 

Department  of  Biology,  Johns  Hopkins  University 

Stimuli  produced  by  light  and  by  contact  with  solid  walls  as  factors  in 

the  behavior  of  orphiuroids.    Thirteen  figures. 
OTTO  C.  GLASER 

Zoological  Department,  University  of  Michigan 
The  nematocysts  of  Solids.    Twelve  figures. 
SEITARO   GOTO 

Zoological  Department,  Imperial  University,  Tokyo 

On  two  species  of  Hydractinia  living  in  symbiosis  with  a  hermit  crab. 

Twenty-three  figures. 
CHARLES   WILSON   GREENE 
University  of  Missouri 

An  experimental  determination  of  the  speed  of  migration  of  salmon  in 

the  Columbia  river.    Two  figures. 
ROSS   GRANVILLE   HARRISON 
Yale  University 

The  outgrowth  of  the  nerve  fiber  as  a  mode  of  protoplasmic  movement. 

Three  plates  and  three  figures. 
FRANCIS  H.  HERRICK 
Adelbert  College 

Life  and  behavior  of  the  cuckoo.    Seven  plates  and  three  figures. 
H.  S.  JENNINGS 

Zoological  Department,  Johns  Hopkins  University 

What  conditions  induce  conjugation  in  Paramecium?    Four  figures. 
DUNCAN  S.  JOHNSON 

Johns  Hopkins  University 

Studies  in  the  development  of  the  Piperacese.    Seventy-one  figures. 


44G374 


GEORGE   LEFEVRE   AND   W.  C.  CURTIS 

Zoological  Department,  University  of  Missouri 

Reproduction  and  parasitism  in  the  Unionidse.  Five  plates  and  one  figure. 
EDWIN   LINTON 

Washington  and  Jefferson  College 

On  a  new  rhabdocoele  commensal  with  Modiolus  plicatulus.    Forty-one 

figures. 

J.    PLAYFAIR   McMURRICH 
The  University  of  Toronto 

The  genus  Arachnactis.    Five  figures. 
S.  O.  MAST 

Woman's  College,  Baltimore 

Reactions  of  Amoeba  to  light.     Two  figures. 
MAYNARD   M.  METCALF 

Zoological  Department,  Oberlin  College 

Studies  on  Amoeba.     I.     On  the  localization   of  the  excretory  function 

in  Amoeba  proteus.    Forty-four  figures. 
T.  H.  MORGAN 

Zoological  Department,  Columbia  University 

Studies  on  eggs  subjected  to  centrifugal  force.     Twenty-one  figures, 

three  plates  in  color  and  five  plates  gelatine  process. 
HENRY   F.  NACHTRIEB 

Biological  Department,  University  of  Minnesota 

The  primitive  pores  of  Polyodon  spathula  (Walbaum).    Twelve  figures. 
HENRY  LESLIE  OSBORN 
Hamline  University 

On  the  structure  of  cryptogonimus  (nov.gen.)  chyli  (n.sp.)  an  aberrant 

distome,  from  fishes  of  Michigan  and  New  York.     Seven  figures. 
G.  C.  PRICE 

Zoological  Department,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University 

The  structure  and  function  of  the  adult  head  kidney  of  Bdellostoma 

Stouti.    Four  figures. 
A.  M.  REESE 

West  Virginia  University 

The  lateral  line  system  of  Chimaera  colliei.    Eighteen  figures. 
SAMUEL   RITTENHOUSE 

Biological  Department,  Olivet  College 

The  embryology  of  Stomotoca  apicata.    Thirty-two  figures. 
DAVID   H.  TENNENT 
Bryn  Mawr  College 

Variation  in  echinoid  plutei.      Twenty-one  figures  and  nine  charts. 
ALBERT   H.  TUTTLE 

Department  of  Biology,  University  of  Virginia 
Mitosis  in  (Edogonium.    Eighteen  figures. 
EDMUND   B.  WILSON 

Zoological  Department,  Columbia  University 
Studies  on  chromosomes.      Five  figures. 
H.  V.  WILSON 

Zoological  Department,  University  of  North  Carolina 

A  study  of  some  epithelioid  membranes  in  monaxonid  sponges.    Twenty- 
one  figures. 

Biographical  sketch  with  three  Heliotype  portraits. 
THE   WISTAR   INSTITUTE   OF   ANATOMY   AND   BIOLOGY 
36TH    STREET   AND   WOODLAND    AVENUE, 
PHILADELPHIA,    PA. 


. 


[AM  KEITH  BROO1 

UFE  BY  SO?:  v,R  PUPI 

AND  ASSOCIATES' 

•ith  Brooks,  second  of  the  four  sons  of  Oliver  Alien 
mora  Bradbury  Kingsley,  was  born  at  Cleveland, 
•h  25,  1848.     His  parents  were  both  descended  i 
ttlers  of  Massachusetts,  the  first  of  the  name  having 
o  America  from  England,  before  the  year  1634. 
who  was  born  i^^^dl^Jjy^,  Vgm<mt,  had  removed  to 
eland  in  1835,  where  he  was  engaged  in  business. 
As  a  boy,  Brooks  was  studiou#S&Jd  thoughtful.    He  obt; 
his  early  education  in  the  public  schools  of  Cleveland,  and  ent 
Hobart  College  at  the  age  of  eighteen.     T w  I ater  he  ent 

junior  class  at  Willian  lie  received 

i  in  college  he 

n  publishv 

of  William  Keith  Brooks.    Pop.  Sci. 
>.  400-409,  with  portrait. 

* 

. 

• 
1910. 

10.  A.  Andrews;  Bio 

• 
• 


William  Keith  Brooks 

1903 


WILLIAM  KEITH  BROOKS 

A  SKETCH  OF  HIS  LIFE  BY  SOME  OF  HIS  FORMER  PUPILS 
AND  ASSOCIATES1 

William  Keith  Brooks,  second  of  the  four  sons  of  Oliver  Allen 
Brooks  and  Ellenora  Bradbury  Kingsley,  was  born  at  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  March  25,  1848.  His  parents  were  both  descended  from 
the  early  settlers  of  Massachusetts,  the  first  of  the  name  having 
come  to  America  from  England,  before  the  year  1634.  His 
father,  who  was  born  in  Middlebury,  Vermont,  had  removed  to 
Cleveland  in  1835,  where  he  was  engaged  in  business. 

As  a  boy,  Brooks  was  studious  and  thoughtful.  He  obtained 
his  early  education  in  the  public  schools  of  Cleveland,  and  entered 
Hobart  College  at  the  age  of  eighteen.  Two  years  later  he  entered 
the  junior  class  at  Williams  College,  from  which  he  received  the 
degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1870.  Although  in  college  he  had 

1  Biographical  sketches  of  Professor  W.  K.  Brooks  have  been  published  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  E.  A.  Andrews;  Sketch  of  William  Keith  Brooks.    Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  vol. 
55  no.  3,  July  1899,  pp.  400-409,  with  portrait. 

2.  E.  A.  Andrews;  William  Keith  Brooks.     Science,  N.  S.  vol.  28  Dec.  4,  1908, 
pp.  777-786,  and  Jan.  1,  1909,  p.  31. 

3.  Edwin  G.  Conklin;  The  Life  and  Work  of  Professor  Brooks.     Anatomical 
Record,  vol.  3,  no.  1,  January  1909,  pp.  1-13,  with  portrait. 

4.  Edwin  G.  Conklin;  William  Keith  Brooks.     Proc.  Am.   Phil.  Soc.,  no.  190, 
1909,  pp.  3-10. 

5.  Edwin  G.  Conklin;  Biographical  Memoir  of  William  Keith  Brooks,  1848- 
1908.     National  Academy  of  Sciences,  Biographical  Memoirs,  vol.  7,  February 
1910. 

6.  E.  A.  Andrews;  Biography  of  William  Keith  Brooks,  in  "Leading  Americans," 
Holt  &  Co.,  New  York.  1910. 

A  meeting  commemorative  of  Prof.  Brooks  was  held  in  McCoy  Hall,  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Nov.  12,  1908.  Addresses  were  made  by  Professor  B.  L. 
Gildersleeve,  Dr.  H.  M.  Hurd,  Professor  W.  H.  Howell,  Professor  E.  A.  Andrews, 
Dr.  Caswell  Grave  and  Professor  W.  H.  Browne.  See  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity Circular,  January  1909. 

THE  JOURNAL   OF   EXPERIMENTAL  ZOOLOGY,   VOL.  9,   NO.    1. 


•  s,«; 

»,* 


WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 


shown  special  interest  in  philosophy  and  in  studies  with  the  micro- 
scope, he  was  uncertain  on  graduation  whether  to  devote  himself 
to  natural  history,  to  mathematics  or  to  Greek,  in  all  of  which 
subjects  he  excelled.  After  leaving  Williams  College  he  spent 
a  short  time  with  his  father  in  business,  but  this  occupation  was 
not  to  his  liking  and  he  gave  it  up  to  become  a  teacher  in  a  school 
for  boys  at  Niagara  Falls.  After  holding  that  position  for  two 
years  he  became  a  graduate  student  at  Harvard  College  under 
Louis  Agassiz,  who  was  then  at  the  zenith  of  his  career,  and  at 
the  seaside  laboratory  established  by  this  great  master  in  1873  on 
the  Island  of  Penikese,  Brooks  began  a  life-long  devotion  to  the 
study  of  marine  zoology.  In  1875  he  was  appointed  assistant 
in  the  museum  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History  and  in 
the  same  year  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  from 
Harvard.  It  was  during  the  summer  of  this  year,  while  at  home 
on  his  vacation,  that  he  organized,  together  with  Theodore  B. 
Comstock  and  Albert  H.  Tuttle,  a  class  for  laboratory  instruction 
in  zoology  and  botany  for  teachers. 

With  the  opening  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  in  1876,  one 
of  the  twenty  fellowships  was  awarded  Brooks,  who  thus  at  its 
very  foundation  entered  the  service  of  the  institution  with  which 
he  was  to  remain  connected  until  his  death.  He  was  immediately 
advanced  to  the  position  of  Associate  and  later  was  successively 
appointed  Associate  Professor  of  Comparative  Anatomy,  Asso- 
ciate Professor  of  Morphology,  Professor  of  Animal  Morphology, 
Professor  of  Zoology  and  Head  of  the  Biological  Department. 
In  1878  he  was  made  Director  of  the  Chesapeake  Zoological 
Laboratory  of  the  University,  an  institution  which  he  organized 
and  which  became  a  potent  adjunct  to  the  Baltimore  laboratory 
in  the  training  of  biologists. 

Professor  Brooks  was  the  recipient  of  numerous  public  honors. 
When  but  thirty-six  years  of  age  he  was  elected  a  member  of 
the  National  Academy.  He  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  Ameri- 
can Philosophical  Society  in  1886,  and  of  the  Academy  of  Natural 
Sciences  in  1887.  He  was  Lowell  lecturer  in  1901  and  gave  one 
of  the  three  general  addresses  before  the  International  Zoolog- 
ical Congress  at  Boston,  in  1907.  He  received  the  honorary  de- 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  6 

gree  of  LL.D.  from  Williams  College  in  1893,  from  Hobart  College 
in  1899,  and  from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  in  1906.  For 
his  discoveries  on  the  life  history  of  the  American  oyster  he  was 
awarded  the  medal  of  the  Societe  d'Acclimatation  of  Paris,  and 
for  his  work  on  the  Stomatopoda,  a  Challenger  medal. — He  was 
editor  of  the  "Memoirs  from  the  Biological  Laboratory"  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  joint  editor  of  the  "  Studies  from  the 
Biological  Laboratory"  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and 
one  of  the  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Experimental  Zoology.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Natural  History,  the 
American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  the  American  Society 
of  Zoologists,  and  of  the  Maryland  Academy  of  Sciences,  and  was 
a  Fellow  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science  and  of  the  Royal  Microscopical  Society. 

On  June  13,  1878,  Professor  Brooks  married  Amelia  Katherine 
Schultz  (deceased  1901),  daughter  of  Edward  Thomas  Schultz, 
and  Susan  Rebecca  (Majtin)  Schultz  of  Baltimore.  Two  chil- 
dren were  born,  Charles  Edward  Brooks  and  Mrs.  Menetta 
White  (Brooks)  Daniel,  both  of  whom  survive  him. 

A  congenital  defect  of  the  heart  had  always  caused  Professor 
Brooks  to  lead  a  less  active  life  physically  than  do  most  men, 
and  to  this  trouble  other  bodily  ills  were  added  as  life  advanced. 
After  a  continuous  prostrating  illness  of  nine  months  he  died 
at  his  home  "Brightside,"  near  Baltimore,  November  12,  1908. 

As  a  stimulating  teacher,  an  ardent  and  successful  investigator, 
and  a  philosophic  naturalist,  the  influence  of  Brooks  on  the  de- 
velopment of  zoology  in  this  country  has  been  very  great.  His 
students  are  scattered  widely  in  college  and  university,  in  muse- 
ums, and  scientific  stations  in  this  country  and  abroad,  and  many 
have  become  eminent  in  their  own  fields  of  work.  His  discover- 
ies, numerous  and  important,  have  enriched  zoology  and  have 
been  incorporated  into  the  permanent  literature  of  that  science. 
Certain  of  his  memoirs  are  models  of  completeness  and  beauty. 
His  brilliant  and  thorough  work  on  the  oyster  fisheries  of  Mary- 
land has  made  his  name  familiar  to  economists  and  to  intelligent 
legislators.  In  an  age  perhaps  over-eager  in  the  pursuit  of  new 
knowledge  Brooks  has  called  attention  back  to  the  fundamental 


4  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

nature  of  knowledge  itself  in  such  a  way  that  his  helpfulness 
has  been  gladly  and  gratefully  recognized  in  many  circles  of 
science. 

In  his  personal  character  Brooks  combined  gentleness  and 
strength  and  a  rare  wisdom.  In  university  matters  and  in  all  the 
affairs  of  life  he  was  a  lover  of  freedom  and  of  justice  tempered 
with  kindliness.  Although  looked  upon  from  the  beginning  as  a 
master  mind,  he  was  totally  free  from  formality  and  never  ass  amed 
the  authoritative  air  of  the  traditional  professor,  but  met  his 
students  and  associates  in  all  simplicity  and  frankness  as  fellow 
student  and  inquirer.  What  he  was  as  a  man  and  a  student  was 
fully  revealed,  and  the  singularly  deep  influence  which  he  exerted 
upon  those  who  worked  with  him  constitutes  a  remarkable 
tribute  to  his  genuine  ability  and  worth.  The  close  friend- 
ship between  him  and  his  students  was  evidenced  in  many  ways 
in  the  daily  life  of  the  laboratory,  and  at  the  evening  gather- 
ings at  his  home.  It  was  given  more  definite  expression  on  the 
occasion  of  his  promotion  to  a  full  professorship,  and  again  on 
his  fiftieth  birthday,  when  his  pupils  came  together  at  Bright- 
side  to  present  to  him  formally  the  portrait  for  which  he  had 
sat  at  their  request. 

The  appreciations,  reviews  and  recollections  embodied  in  the 
following  pages  and  coming  from  former  students  and  associates 
record  some  of  the  labors  and  some  of  the  traits,  human  and  pro- 
fessional, of  a  profound  thinker  and  tireless  worker. 

SOME  RECOLLECTIONS  OF  PROFESSOR  BROOKS  CHRONOLOG- 
ICALLY ARRANGED 

1876-7 9. 2  Among  the  company  of  twenty  young  men  who 
came  together  in  Baltimore  in  1876  as  the  first  group  of  "Fellows" 
of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  were  three  biologists.  One  of  these 
was  of  less  than  average  stature,  wearing  a  serious  face,  with 
close-set  eyes,  quiet  and  unhurried  in  his  movements,  speaking 
not  frequently,  and  never  with  haste.  This  was  W.  K.  Brooks 
of  Williams  and  Harvard.  The  biological  department  was  at 
once  organized  by  Professor  Martin  with  Dr.  Brooks  as  an  Asso- 

*  Professor  S.  F.  Clarke,  Williams  College. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  5 

ciate,  and  it  is  an  illustration  of  that  .quiet  impressiveness  of 
Brooks'  simple  manner  that  his  appointment  was  immediately 
recognized  by  every  one  to  be  most  eminently  fitting. 

He  quickly  gained  our  respect  and  admiration  by  the  con- 
stant seriousness  of  his  thoughts,  and  the  simplicity  and  gen- 
uineness of  his  statements :  simple  in  expression  but  showing  care- 
ful and  deep  reflection.  Our  affection  was  won  and  held  by  his 
genuine,  never-failing  interest  in,  and  friendship  for  us. 

As  I  recall  his  reading  to  me  of  the  then  unfinished  manuscript 
of  his  book  on  Heredity  in  my  room  on  Centre  street  in  1876,  of 
the  many  long  talks  on  biological  subjects,  in  either  his  room  or 
mine  at  the  University,  at  Brightside,  or  at  Crisfield,  Fort  Wool 
or  Beaufort,  I  become  aware  again  of  the  constant  seriousness, 
and  power  of  his  thought,  which  awoke  and  continually  increased 
an  admiration  for  his  intellectual  ability. 

Brooks'  friendship  was  even  and  steadfast.  It  never  found 
great  expression  in  words,  but  it  never  wavered.  I  felt  this 'dur- 
ing my  early  years  of  association  with  him,  and  the  conviction 
was  but  strengthened  with  the  growing  years.  This  steadfast- 
ness of  affection  and  confidence  in  his  friends,  his  perfect  simpli- 
city and  genuineness,  and  his  serious  and  profound  mind  are  to 
me  the  sources  of  Brooks '  great  and  lasting  influence  on  men. 

1883-84*  The  first  time  I  saw  Professor  Brooks  was  in  1883. 
The  year  before,  while  I  was  endeavoring  to  make  out  some  of  the 
points  in  the  structure  of  Balanoglossus,  then  imperfectly  known, 
it  was  announced  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Circular  that  a  littoral 
species  of  that  animal  had  been  found  at  Hampton,  Va.  At 
Mr.  Adam  Sedgwick's  suggestion  I  wrote  to  Brooks  asking  if 
I  might  come  over  to  investigate  it.  Brooks,  as  his  friends  will 
remember,  did  not  habitually  answer  letters,  but  as  it  happened 
he  did  answer  that  one  and  sent  me  a  cordial  invitation  to  come 
and  try.  Such  leave  was  no  little  thing  to  give,  for  Balanoglos- 
sus must  have  been  known  to  be  one  of  the  prizes  of  the  station, 
but  in  professional  generosity  Brooks  was  royal  and  lavish. 

8  Professor  William  Bateson,  Cambridge,  England. 


6  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

From  the  first  moment  of  meeting  in  the  empty  warehouse  of 
the  Normal  College,  which  then  served  for  a  laboratory,  we  be- 
came friends.  He  was  of  course  much  my  senior,  but  there  is  no 
other  word  which  so  well  expresses  the  happy  unconstrained  feel- 
ing that  I  felt  towards  him  and  that  he  showed  towards  me.  It 
had  been  settled  that  I  was  to  live  at  Mr.  Cock's  boarding  house, 
across  the  creek,  where  the  Brooks  family  had  their  quarters,  and 
we  thus  spent  several  weeks  in  constant  intimacy. 

He  was  not  the  least  like  any  one  else  I  had  ever  known,  and  I 
find  it  difficult  to  express  the  charm  which  his  personality  had 
for  me  then,  and  has  had  increasingly  since.  He  was,  as  I  soon 
found,  on  account  of  superficial  eccentricities  reputed  a  reserved 
and  rather  inaccessible  man.  In  general  company  he  would 
indeed  often  remain  silent  and  I  think  he  had  moods  in  which 
a  morbid  shyness  would  take  complete  possession  of  him,  but  once 
at  his  ease  he  was  another  man.  At  such  times  he  would  talk 
abundantly,  but  his  speech  was  always  that  of  the  taciturn  observer, 
with  the  special,  holding  quality  that  the  speech  of  such  men  has. 
He  spoke  in  short  incisive  phrases,  full  of  novelty,  suggestion, 
and  humorously  inventive  thought,  sometimes,  but  not  often, 
rising  to  enthusiasm.  I  see  him  now,  with  his  short,  round  fig- 
ure, sitting  on  the  piazza  at  Mr.  Cock's  or  lying  flat  on  his  bed— 
a  posture  he  often  took  when  in  a  talking  mood — ruminating  his 
thoughts,  which,  if  the  truth  must  be  told,  were  periodically  in- 
terrupted by  his  devotion  to  tobacco.  What  a  strange  combi- 
nation it  was!  The  grave,  kindly  face,  the  earnest  solemnity  of 
philosophical  speculation  and  the  homely  quid.  Now,  I  suppose, 
no  university  professor,  however  contemplative,  dare  use  tobacco 
in  this  particular  way ;  but  I  wonder  if  any  university  professor 
ruminates  spacious  ideas  as  Brooks  used  to  do,  daily  through 
long  vacant  hours  of  leisure,  to  the  delight  and  elevation  of  a 
youthful  listener.  Those  are  the  times  of  true  education 

"when  lofty  thought 
Lifts  the  young  heart  above  its  mortal  lair." 

Many  of  Brooks'  pupils  must  look  back  on  similar  pleasant 
hours  of  intimate,  informal  summer  laboratory  life  as  critical 
moments  in  their  development.  For  myself  I  know  that  it  was 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  7 

through  Brooks  that  I  first  came  to  realize  the  problem  which  for 
years  has  been  my  chief  interest  and  concern.  At  Cambridge 
in  the  eighties  morphology  held  us  like  a  spell.  That  part  of 
biology  was  concrete.  The  discovery  of  definite,  incontrovert- 
ible fact  is  the  best  kind  of  scientific  work,  and  morphological 
research  was  still  bringing  up  new  facts  in  quantity.  It  scarcely 
occurred  to  us  that  the  supply  of  that  particular  class  of  fact  was 
exhaustible,  still  less  that  facts  of  other  classes  might  have  a  wider 
significance.  In  1883  Brooks  was  just  finishing  his  book  "  Her- 
edity'7, and  naturally  his  talk  used  to  turn  largely  on  this  subject. 
He  used  especially  to  recur  to  his  ideas  on  the  nature  and  causes 
of  variation,  and  to  the  conception  which  he  developed  in  "  Her- 
edity," that  the  functions  of  the  male  and  female  germ  cells  are 
distinct.  The  leading  thought  was  that  which  he  expresses  in 
his  book  (p.  312)  that  "  the  obscurity  and  complexity  of  the  phen- 
omena of  heredity  afford  no  ground  for  the  belief  that  the  subject 
is  outside  the  legitimate  province  of  scientific  enquiry."  He 
deplored  the  fact  that  he  had  no  opportunity  for  the  requisite 
experiments  in  breeding,  but  he  saw  plainly  that  such  experiments 
were  the  first  necessity  for  progress  in  biology. 

To  me  the  whole  province  was  new.  Variation  and  heredity 
with  us  had  stood  as  axioms.  For  Brooks  they  were  problems. 
As  he  talked  of  them  the  insistence  of  these  problems  became 
imminent  and  oppressive.  It  all  sounded  rather  inchoate  and 
vaporous  at  first,  intangible  as  compared  with  the  facts  of  develop- 
ment which  we  knew  well  how  to  pursue,  but  with  the  lapse  of 
time  the  impression  became  strong  that  Brooks  was  on  the  right 
line.  That  autumn  I  went  home  feeling  that  though  in  technique 
we  were  a  long  way  ahead  of  Johns  Hopkins — I  had  the  pleasure 
of  showing  off  the  Jung  microtome,  then  the  latest  thing  in  pro- 
gress, to  the  admiring  Baltimore  men — yet  somehow  Brooks  had 
access  to  novelties  of  a  more  serious  description. 

In  the  following  summer  I  was  again  with  Brooks  at  Beaufort, 
N.  C.,  but  in  that  year  I  soon  fell  ill  and  was  for  a  long  time  too 
weak  for  much  talk  of  any  kind.  Indeed,  but  for  the  devoted 
ministrations  of  Brooks  and  his  students,  who  for  weeks  performed 
for  me  the  offices  of  the  trained  nurse,  I  might  never  have  left 


8  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

Beaufort  alive.  The  "  Heredity "  had  meanwhile  appeared  and  I 
am  afraid  Brooks  was  disappointed  with  the  reception  it  met,  for 
it  was  noticed  with  little  more  than  formal  sympathy.  Looked 
at  in  the  light  of  subsequent  knowledge  its  purpose  was  indeed 
rather,  as  he  says,  "to  turn  the  attention  of  others  into  this 
channel"  than  to  make  an  independent  advance.  In  the  preface 
he  wrote:  "I  have  little  hope  that  my  views  will  be  accepted 
in  the  form  in  which  they  are  here  presented,  but  I  do  hope  that 
they  may  serve  to  bind  together  and  to  vitalize  the  mass  of  facts 
which  we  already  possess  and  that  they  may  thus  incite  and  direct 
new  experiments."  That  function  he  and  his  book  did  at  length 
admirably  perform  for  many,  both  in  England  and  in  America. 

1885-89.*  In  going  over  my  memories  of  Dr.  Brooks  I  find  that 
my  mind  does  not  separate  him  from  his  environment.  I  con- 
tinually see  him  in  the  semicommunal  life  of  the  laboratory, 
whether  in  Baltimore  or  Beaufort,  Woods  Hole  or  the  islands  of 
the  West  Indian  sea,  which  so  stirred  and  charmed  him.  Even 
his  home  life  with  its  restful,  satisfying  beauty  was  but  a  detached 
fragment  of  the  other  larger  existence.  I  think  of  him  as  the  cen- 
tral figure,  wise  and  kind,  of  a  circle  of  young  men  coming  from 
many  quarters,  from  New  England,  the  Middle  States,  the  West, 
and  the  South,  from  Canada,  England  and  Japan,  a  society  from 
which  older  members  were  always  going  out  to  honorable  careers 
and  into  which  new  were  coming  to  learn  the  ways  and  traditions 
of  the  school.  Very  different  were  we,  but  knit  together  from 
the  start  by  the  strong  bond  of  a  common  interest,  and  presently 
by  growing  appreciation  of  him  who  made  the  school.  It  took 
us  but  a  short  time  to  learn  that  here  was  no  mere  work-shop,  well 
organized  and  in  which  we  might  acquire  the  requisite  degree  of 
skill  in  a  profession,  but  that  we  were  in  the  company  of  a  master 
mind,  wide  ranging  in  the  fields  of  knowledge  and  inquiry,  pro- 
found in  contemplative  thought,  and  with  the  acuteness  of  the 
observer  who  discovers  what  has  been  hidden. 

As  I  dwell  on  the  man  and  try  to  single  out  mental  habits  and 

1  Professor  H.  V.  Wilson,  University  of  North  Carolina. 


A   SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  9 

attributes  from  the  whole  of  his  personality,  I  come  to  many  that 
arrest  and  enchain  my  attention. 

It  is  interesting  to  consider  his  practice  and  advice  to  beginners 
in  the  study  of  Nature.  It  was  to  start  out,  not  from  a  general 
principle,  but  from  some  phenomenon  that  had  caught  the- eye 
and  become  a  nucleus  for  thought.  Continued,  persistent  obser- 
vation and  reflection  circling  round  such  a  center  would  yield, 
he  held,  solid  results  in  the  shape  of  new  facts  and  would  sooner 
or  later  lead  one  into  living  contact  with  great  questions.  This 
method  of  work  was  eminently  characteristic  of  his  independent, 
individualistic  temperament. 

The  serenity  of  Dr.  Brooks  impressed  every  one.  In  a  mind  so 
strong,  active,  and  keen,  calm  temperateness  was  doubly  notice- 
able. This  peace  of  mind  must  have  been  due  in  part  to  the  fact 
that  his  critical  insight  was  unobscured  by  self-seeking.  A  firm 
gaze  fixed  on  the  distant  goal  held  the  immediately  advantageous 
in  its  proper  place,  and  gave  him  a  confidence,  a  quiet  boldness 
that  we  all  recognized. 

Brooks  frequently  said  that  he  tried  always  to  be  a  reasonable 
man.  And  in  dealing  with  men  and  their  ways  I  am  convinced 
that  reasoning  did  guide  him  in  remarkable  degree.  His  log- 
ical habit  of  thought  came  in,  however,  for  more  congenial  exer- 
cise in  professional  work.  Do  we  not  all  remember  the  pleasure 
he  had  in  the  skillful  disengagement  of  the  idea  from  the  mass  of 
details,  and  in  its  portrayal,  language  and  drawing  mutually  con- 
tributing to  clearness? 

I  recall  also  his  strong  and  helpful  faith  in  the  value  of  labor 
spent  in  searching  out  the  order  of  the  universe,  the  way  things 
happen  in  nature.  For,  as  he  often  said,  such  knowledge  both 
makes  the  conscious  life  of  man  fuller  and  nobler,  and  is  the 
basis  on  which  rests  all  our  control  of  natural  phenomena. 

The  machinery  of  Professor  Brooks'  department,  the  lectures, 
set  tasks  and  routine,  was  simple.  Experience  has  shown,  how- 
ever, that  it  was  not  inadequate,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  well 
adapted  to  the  purpose  in  view.  Brooks'  underlying  assumptions 
were  that  graduate  students  had  come  to  stay  some  time,  would 
work  as  hard  as  they  could,  and  that  they  had  enough  independence 


10  WILLIAM   KEITH   BIJOOKS 

of  mind  and  enough  elementary  training  to  handle  books  and 
journals  which  record  the  actual  state  and  progress  of  zoology. 
Of  lectures  there  was  one  now  and  then  from  Professor  Brooks  on 
any  subject.  A  round  of  lectures  by  older  students  in  the  de- 
partment was  given  some  years,  and  this  was  excellent  practice. 

The  journal  club  was  serious.  It  met  weekly  and  the  arrange- 
ment was  such  that  each  graduate  student  reported  a  number  of 
times  during  the  year.  A  reading  club  met  weekly  in  the  even- 
ing at  Professor  Brooks'  house.  Some  pleasant  book  of  general 
zoological  interest,  often  one  of  travel,  was  read,  after  which  came 
tea.  In  the  laboratory  again  once  a  week  readings  of  a  more 
serious  nature  and  with  some  discussion  were  held.  The  "  Origin 
of  Species"  was  in  this  way  gone  through,  and  "Agassiz's  Essay 
on  Classification." 

Professor  Brooks  had  compiled  an  elaborate  list  of  the  litera- 
ture, with  which  it  was  supposed  candidates  for  the  doctor's 
degree  were  to  make  themselves  familiar.  It  included  the 
text-books  of  the  period  and  important  memoirs  on  the  various 
subdivisions  of  zoology.  The  list  was  long.  Perhaps  some  stu- 
dents completed  it.  But  we  all  read  with  considerable  diligence 
and  it  was  the  custom  to  make  careful  abstracts.  On  the  basis 
of  this  common  reading  a  good  deal  of  informal  talk  and  dis- 
cussion was  maintained  among  us. 

We  lived  in  the  laboratory  all  day  and  the  younger  men  learned 
much  from  the  older,  especially  in  matters  of  technique.  Brooks 
gave  excellent  suggestions  on  drawing  and  would  occasionally  go 
through  the  form  of  taking  a  micro-photograph.  A  beginner  in 
my  time  was  usually  given  some  material,  referred  to  a  paper  or 
two  on  comparative  anatomy  or  embryology,  and  told  to  verify 
the  research.  At  intervals,  frequent  enough,  Brooks  looked  at 
his  figures,  notes,  and  preparations  and  had  something  to  say 
about  the  matter.  Frequently  before  this  first  testing  and  form- 
ing exercise  was  completed,  the  man  would  be  put  at  another. 
Two  or  three  filled  the  year.  Then  came  a  long  season  at  the 
seaside  laboratory,  in  all  probability  the  first  for  the  student  and 
teeming  with  experience.  There  was  daily  collecting,  much  study 
of  live  animals,  much  rearing  of  embryos  and  larvae.  The  pelagic 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  11 

fauna  got  in  the  tow  net  or  at  times  by  dipping  came  in  for  a  good 
deal  of  attention.  Numerous  quick  dissections  were  made,  and 
quantities  of  notes  and  drawings.  Brooks  exercised  little  or  no 
supervision  over  such  work,  but  the  older  men  were  a  great  help 
to  the  younger.  The  larger  manuals  such  as  Balfour's  Embry- 
ology, and  later  Korschelt  and  Heider,  were  fairly  thumbed. 
The  industry  and  "go"  of  Brooks7  summer  laboratories  was  re- 
markable, the  lamps  lit  in  the  evening,  and  someone  frequently 
sitting  up  all  through  the  night  to  "follow  a  development." 
Toward  the  end  of  the  season,  when  a  little  perspective  had  been 
acquired  and  mere  mass  and  variety  began  to  pall,  a  special  form 
or  two  was  singled  out  as  promising  something  in  the  way  of  new 
results,  and  the  path  of  research  was  thus  opened  up.  The  ma- 
terial so  collected  was  studied  in  detail  during  the  following  winter. 
More  intensive  reading  bearing  on  the  problems  as  they  became 
defined  was  undertaken.  Informal,  short,  but  helpful  talks  about 
the  work  were  had  with  Brooks  from  tune  to  time.  He  would 
examine  particular  preparations,  quickly  to  be  sure,  or  would 
criticise  figures.  There  was  never  any  leading  or  "nursing" 
on  his  part.  By  the  end  of  the  year,  though,  some  grasp  of  the 
methods  of  research  had  been  acquired,  and  the  following  summer 
at  the  seaside  usually  found  the  student  able  to  pursue  the  line 
of  inquiry  on  which  he  had  already  started,  or  to  strike  off  into 
an  associated  field. 


1887-96.*  No  account  of  Professor  Brooks  should  omit  men- 
tion of  his  love  for  plants.  It  is  true  that  this  interest  was  appar- 
ently, to  a  large  extent,  of  secondary  influence  as  far  as  his  pub- 
lished work  was  concerned  •  but  it  was  very  real  and  occupied  a 
constant  place  in  his  thoughts  on  the  broader  problems  of  nature. 
The  relations  of  the  living  organism  to  the  environment  were  well 
exemplified  for  him  in  the  plant  world.  He  always  kept  at  hand 
something  of  botanical  interest,  and  would  invite  you  into  his  little 
greenhouse,  or  into  his  garden,  to  exhibit  with  pride  some  product 
of  his  own  skill.  Nowhere,  perhaps,  was  his  innate  sympathy  for 

:>  Professor  Henry  McE.  Knower,  University  of  Cincinnati. 


12  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

nature  more  clearly  shown  than  here.  His  knowledge  of  botany 
was  also  constantly  drawn  upon  whenever  he  dwelt  on  problems 
of  heredity,  variation,  adaptation,  etc. 

Brooks'  affection  for  nature  was  also  expressed  in  his  observ- 
ations on  the  common  domestic  animals  about  him.  The  exact 
nature  of  this  interest  was  unique  to  my  experience,  until  I  heard 
him  read  aloud  from  the  pages  of  Gilbert  White.  Then  I  realized 
how  the  students  of  Brooks  were  being  kept  in  contact  with,  and 
inspired  by,  a  spirit  which  had  survived  as  a  legacy,  transmitted 
to  this  true  naturalist  from  a  former  century. 

Brooks'  influence  extended  also  to  undergraduates  and  he  im- 
pressed beginners  in  a  manner  which  carries  a  lesson  to  our  bio- 
logical teachers.  The  routine  of  facts  to  be  perceived  was  left 
to  the  books  and  the  laboratory  assistant;  Brooks  brought  out  in 
graphic  lectures,  the  larger  aspects  of  biology.  With  him,  details 
invariably  led  to  some  interesting  relation  or  law.  He  drew  well 
and  deliberately  on  the  blackboard,  and  was  direct,  simple,  and 
clear.  The  result  was  to  give  an  impression  of  nature  as  a  sys- 
tem of  interesting  problems,  glimpses  of  life-histories,  adapta- 
tions, and  action.  All  was  alive  and  presented  by  an  intimate 
friend.  The  student  listened  to  a  master. 

Many  who  may  not  be  recognized  as  students  of  Brooks  have 
thus  had  awakened  in  them  an  interest  in  nature,  and  an  insight 
into  her  methods,  which  made  a  lasting  impression  upon  them. 
This  is  affirmed  by  a  number  of  those  now  conspicuous  in  the  fields 
of  medical  science  and  practice  who  heard  these  lectures. 

More  than  one  undergraduate  was  diverted  into  a  life-long  de- 
votion to  biological  science  by  this  man  who  stood  so  steadfastly 
for  the  highest  ideals  of  research  in  this  field.  His  talks  of 
nature  were  most  persuasive,  and  presented  to  the  minds  of  his 
listeners  a  vivid  picture  of  the  blue  sea,  the  coral  reefs,  and  the 
wonderful  adjustments  of  the  life  with  which  they  teem.  This 
vision  was  so  real  as  to  supplant  all  ordinary  motives  of  life,  and 
inspire  the  sympathetic  listener  with  the  desire  to  follow  the  path 
of  so  genuine  a  leader. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  arouse  his  interest.  Anyone  who  made 
a  sane  observation  of  nature  could  kindle  it  as  readily  as  an  ex- 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  13 

pert  biologist;  and  if  the  observation  happened  to  be  foolish  the 
reaction  was  often  equally  illuminating.  In  this  breadth  of  inter- 
est we  are  reminded  of  Darwin. 

It  is  strange  that  Brooks  never  published  particularly  on  ani- 
mal behavior.  He  was  constantly  alive  to  the  interest  anchoppor- 
tunities  presented  by  this  field,  and  urged  several  students  to 
follow  such  studies;  but  the  trend  was,  then,  too  strongly  set 
toward  morphological  work  to  permit  of  their  diversion  into  this 
other  channel.  I  believe  that  his  very  special  interest  in  the  trans- 
formations and  life-histories  of  echinoderms,  liver-flukes,  and  in- 
sects, which  has  not  been  generally  emphasized  in  accounts  of 
his  life,  was  greatly  affected  by  the  charm  of  observing  the  living 
larvae  and  their  reactions.  His  enthusiasm  induced  several  men 
to  work  on  these  groups,  as  can  be  seen  in  a  number  of  papers  by 
students  whose  publications  are  not  enumerated  in  these  ac- 
counts. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  was  this  e very-day  intimacy  with  living 
things,  and  his  insistent  reflections  on  their  adaptive  responses, 
that  attracted  and  held  his  students:  This  combined  with  a 
single-hearted  devotion  to  a  high  standard  of  scientific  work  and 
thought. 

1888-98*  During  my  residence  of  ten  years  at  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  as  undergraduate,  graduate,  and  assistant,  suc- 
cessively, I  was  thrown  by  fortunate  circumstances  into  relations 
with  Professor  Brooks  which  ultimately  assumed  an  intimate 
and  personal  character,  and  it  is  with  deep  appreciation  and  grat- 
itude that,  as  I  now  look  back  upon  those  years,  I  realize  the 
influence  which  he  exerted  upon  me.  He  was  one  who  set  by  his 
example  the  ideals  which  he  wished  his  students  to  follow  in  scien- 
tific work.  Many  for  the  first  time  learned  from  him  the  real 
meaning  of  the  "  search  for  truth"  as  day  by  day  in  simplicity 
and  sincerity  he  taught  us  through  his  own  truth-loving  nature 
veracity  of  thought  and  action.  Many,  too,  learned  under  him- 
for  the  first  time  to  take  a  philosophic  outlook  on  zoological  phe- 

B  Professor  George  Lefevre,  University  of  Missouri. 


14  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

nomena.  And  his  life  was  such  that  it  made  all  around  him  feel 
in  some  measure  the  charm  of  the  naturalist's  calling. 

Although  the  great  and  lasting  debt,  which  all  who  came  under 
his  instruction  owe  to  him,  springs  from  the  inspiration  that  un- 
consciously passed  from  him  to  us,  it  was  his  personal  qualities, 
his  gentleness,  his  kindliness,  his  thoughtfulness  of  others,  as  well 
as  the  quaint  humor  that  characterized  so  many  of  his  acts  and 
sayings,  that  humanized  and  endeared  him  to  his  students.  His 
capacity  for  sympathy  was  never  shown  more  strikingly  than  dur- 
ing those  dark  days  that  followed  upon  the  death  of  Professor 
Humphrey  and  Dr.  Conant  from  yellow  fever  after  the  disastrous 
expedition  to  Jamaica  in  1897.  All  who  were  there  at  the  time 
will  recall  how  deeply  moved  he  was,  nor  will  any  of  us  be  likely 
to  forget  the  simple  sincerity  of  the  man  as  he  stood  among  us  and 
talked  of  the  nobility  of  the  sacrifice  of  a  life  for  the  sake  of  others 
and  for  the  cause  of  science. 

I  think  my  earliest  definite  recollection  of  Professor  Brooks  is 
of  seeing  him  walk  into  the  lecture  room  in  an  undergraduate 
class  wearing  a  long  rubber  overcoat  which  he  proceeded  at  once  to 
use  on  himself  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  morphological  rela- 
tions of  the  squid's  mantle,  while  holding  out  the  upturned  collar 
to  demonstrate  the  position  of  the  siphon.  I  still  have  my  notes 
on  his  undergraduate  lectures  and  in  reading  them  over  I  am 
struck  afresh  by  the  recollection  of  their  clearness  and  beauty, 
although  the  subjects  upon  which  he  talked  before  the  class  fol- 
lowed each  other  without  apparent  order  or  relation.  As  I  later 
learned  while  acting  as  his  assistant,  he  was  apt  to  lecture  upon 
anything  that  he  happened  to  be  thinking  about  at  the  time,  not 
infrequently  changing  the  subject  at  the  very  last  moment,  to 
the  dismay  of  the  assistant  who  would  then  have  to  prepare  has- 
tily an  entirely  different  set  of  charts  and  specimens  from  those 
which  he  had  been  previously  instructed  to  have  ready. 

When  I  began  my  graduate  work  in  zoology,  I  was,  like  every 
one  else  at  the  start,  cast  adrift,  to  sink  or  swim ;  and  for  all  one 
knew  at  the  time,  Brooks  seemed  absolutely  indifferent  as  to  the 
outcome.  He  had  given  me  a  bottle  containing  a  few  shriveled 
and  collapsed  specimens  of  Doliolum,  with  instructions  to  work 


A    SKETCH    OF  HIS   LIFE  15 

on  the  proliferous  stolon.  I  remember  with  mortification  how  I 
floundered  helplessly  through  the  first  few  months  in  what  ap- 
peared to  me  a  hopeless  struggle  to  reach  solid  ground,  until  one 
day  I  happened  to  find  out  something  new  about  that  stolon. 
It  was  a  very  trivial  point,  but  in  the  exuberance  of  my  first-dis- 
covery I  showed  it  to  Professor  Brooks,  and  from  that  moment 
his  attitude  toward  me  changed  as  if  by  magic.  I  was  forthwith 
consecrated  to  the  study  of  the  Tunicata.  Brooks  had,  however, 
the  habit  of  suddenly  suggesting  and  urging  upon  a  student  a  to- 
tally different  problem  from  the  one  upon  which  he  was  working, 
and  this  caused  the  greatest  consternation  among  us  during  our 
earlier  years,  until  we  found  by  experience  that  he  usually  for- 
got about  the  matter  in  a  few  days.  In  this  connection  I  cannot 
refrain  from  quoting  from  a  letter  which  he  wrote  me  from  Bal- 
timore while  I  was  absorbed  in  studying  the  embryology  of  Ap- 
pendicularia  at  the  Beaufort  Laboratory  in  the  summer  of  1895. 
"I  have  just  heard  from  Bigelow,"  he  wrote,  "that  the  medusa 
which  I  have  been  studying  (Gonionemus)  is  now  abundant  in  the 
Eel  Pond  at  Woods  Hole.  If  you  could  get  the  embryology  and 
metamorphosis,  it  would  make  a  fine  thesis,  and  I  write  in  the 
hope  that  you  may  be  disposed  to  go  to  Woods  Hole  at  once  to 
try  to  study  it,  and  to  get  specimens  of  the  adult  for  me."  The 
idea  of  dropping  all  of  my  work  and  setting  out  on  a  journey  from 
North  Carolina  to  Massachusetts  to  collect  jelly  fishes  did  not 
appeal  very  strongly  to  me,  and  I  remained  in  Beaufort,  but  just 
how  I  escaped  from  the  situation,  which  was  quite  embarrassing 
at  the  time,  I  do  not  now  remember. 

The  recollections  of  Professor  Brooks  that  are  the  most  vivid 
and  interesting  ones  to  me  are  chiefly  associated  with  our  summers 
at  the  marine  laboratories,  for  it  was  there,  away  from  the  routine 
and  greater  restraint  of  the  life  in  Baltimore,  that  we  came  to 
know  him  most  intimately  and  affectionately.  In  the  daily 
companionship  with  him,  for  he  constantly  shared  with  us  both 
the  joys  and  hardships  of  the  work,  the  lovable  side  of  his  nature 
was  conspicuously  open  to  us.  A  thousand  incidents  associated 
with  him  at  Beaufort  crowd  my  memory  as  I  recall  him  there, 
the  center  of  our  life,  the  enthusiastic  naturalist,  the  wise  coun- 


16  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

seller  and  teacher,  the  sympathetic  friend,  his  droll  humor  always 
in  evidence,  but  with  never  a  trace  of  unkindness.  I  remember 
a  day  when  one  of  the  men,  a  rather  puritanical  student,  who  had 
been  struggling  with  some  refractory  material,  in  a  moment  of 
discouragement  told  Professor  Brooks  that  he  could  do  nothing 
with  it.  In  his  characteristic  way  he  made  no  reply  at  the  time, 
but  some  hours  later  returned  and  said  quietly,  "Did  you  ever- 
try  swearing?  That  helps  sometimes.7' 

Most  delightful  of  all  is  the  recollection  of  long  evenings  on  the 
verandah,  where,  after  the  day's  work  was  done,  we  sometimes 
sat  listening  to  his  talk  on  nature  and  philosophy.  True  it  is 
that  we  were  not  always  able  to  follow  him  closely  in  his  meta- 
physical moods  but  we  learned  at  least  to  feel  something  of  the 
relation  that  exists  between  the  study  of  phenomena  and  the 
philosophic  inquiry  into  underlying  causes. 

1900-05.  *  To  work  on  aphids,  to  read  Witlaczil,  these  were  my 
first  instructions.  After  that  he  seemed  to  have  lost  interest  in  me, 
and  he  showed  none  in  aphids.  Months  later  he  startled  me  by 
suddenly  proposing  three  elaborate  dissections,  a  study  of  the 
lamellibranch  gill,  and  of  the  brooding  habits  of  Cyclas. 

To  improve  his  pedagogy  seemed  an  easy  thing  at  that  time; 
to-day  I  am  thankful  that  he  left  me  alone,  and  neither  pushed  nor 
pulled.  Into  the  sea  of  work  suggested  I  plunged,  bat  Brooks 
furnished  no  life-belts.  Instead  he  gave  opportunity,  and  some- 
thing more. 

In  my  time  the  "  Foundations"  were  being  read,  discussed,  and 
not  wholly  understood.  The  typewriter  in  the  laboratory  and 
at  Brightside,  clicked  incessantly.  The  Lowell  Lectures  were  in 
the  making;  bulky  translations  from  Hertwig  and  from  Heider 
were  completed  though  never  published ;  many  essays  and  shorter 
papers  were  written;  Berkeley  was  quoted;  and  the  pile  of  incom- 
ing reprints  remained  unclassified  on  the  floor. 

He  seemed  to  be  writing  much,  and  the  larger  problems, 
for  the  time,  triumphed  over  the  microscope.  The  doom  of  his 
morphological  studies  was  practically  sealed  by  illness  that  grad- 

7  Professor  Otto  C.  Glaacr,  University  of  Michigan. 


William  Keith  Brooks 
Student  at  Williams  College 


1868 


in] 

etimei 

'  rue  it  i: 

meta 
»ilKr3N.; -omething  of  th< 

j.  and  th< 


;.•  • 

r  pushed  nor 

bat  Brooks 

unity,  and  some- 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  17 

ually  became  worse,  until  his  system,  enfeebled  by  a  weak  heart, 
scarcely  resisted  the  other  difficulties  that  began  to  burden  him. 
It  is  true  that  periods  of  improvement  alternated  with  those  of 
depression,  but  the  doubt  that  hovered  over  him  cast  its  shadow 
through  the  laboratory.  It  was  at  this  time  that  MrsJ3rpoks 
died. 

Such  health  as  he  had  known,  never  came  back  wholly,  and 
months  passed  before  interest  in  life  and  work  returned.  With 
renewed  vigor  he  studied  his  hydroids,  his  salpas,  and  the  oyster, 
began  to  complete  researches  half-forgotten,  and  to  start  new 
ones.  The  Sunday  evenings  at  Brightside,  too,  were  resumed, 
and  amid  clouds  of  smoke,  he  read  Berkeley  or  his  own  writings. 
This  was  Indian  summer. 

At  home,  much  of  his  most  vital  teaching  was  done.  Stretched 
comfortably  in  his  steamer  chair,  in  full  view  of  the  books  and  pic- 
tures that  he  loved,  and  surrounded  by  a  family,  not  in  the  narrow 
sense,  but  one  in  which  his  students,  his  negro  servants,  his  dogs, 
and  his  flowers  had  each  a  place,  he  was  thoroughly  at  ease.  Often, 
as  he  laid  his  hand  affectionately  on  Jupe's  great  head,  he  spoke 
with  tenderness  of  the  details  of  his  home-life. 

If  one  thing  must  be  singled  out  to  explain  the  affection  he 
inspired,  it  is  that  he  himself  was  affectionate.  The  loyalty  that 
led  him  to  give  of  his  own  small  income  in  times  of  need  and 
made  him  speak  of  former  students  as  though  they  had  been  with 
him  only  yesterday,  included  other  things,  his  science,  his  duties 
as  a  teacher,  and  his  university.  In  its  period  of  hardship  he 
economized,  and  offers  from  other  institutions  did  not  shake  him. 

His  interests  were  human,  and  his  science  a  pathway  along 
which  he  walked  in  humility  to  view  the  world  and  to  interpret 
it.  The  great  problems  were  not  mere  exercises  for  the  mind,  but 
human  difficulties.  The  teacher  and  the  mnn  were  inseparable 
and  it  was  no  less  the  man  than  the  teacher  who  inspired  others. 

1905-08.*  It  was  during  Professor  Brooks'  declining  years  that 
he  honored  me  with  his  friendship.  On  these  visits  of  his  to  the 

8  Dr.  A.  G.  Mayer,  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington. 

THE  JOURNAL  OF   EXPERIMENTAL  ZOOLOGY,   VOL.  9,   NO.   1. 


18  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

Carnegie  Laboratory  at  Tortugas  I  was  much  impressed  with 
his  broad  kindliness  and  tolerance  of  spirit  and  with  his  interest 
in  the  world.  The  force  and  independence  of  his  character  also 
were  obvious  and  it  was  clear  that  he  would  have  been  a  deep 
student  of  living  things  under  any  conditions  of  life.  He  was  a 
thinker  even  more  than  an  observer.  He  was  the  follower  of  no 
school,  and  few  men  have  been  so  little  dominated  by  the  thoughts 
of  the  world  around  them. 

Still  it  was  not  his  power  and  originality  alone  that  made  him 
great  and  reverenced  among  us.  It  was  his  spirit  that  led  us 
onward  in  our  science.  The  little  boy  who  studied  dragon  flies 
in  the  pool  of  his  father's  yard  had  had  many  years  pass  over  him, 
yet  in  his  simple  wondering  love  of  nature  he  remained  as  in  his 
childhood  days.  This  deep  reverence  for  the  universe  of  which 
he  felt  he  formed  so  small  a  part,  made  him  careless  of  many  things 
we  deem  important  in  our  daily  life,  for  his  thoughts  were  not 
apon  things  of  the  moment  but  were  far  beyond  in  the  border- 
land between  the  known  and  the  unknown. 

THE  CHESAPEAKE  ZOOLOGICAL  LABORATORY9 

Professor  Brooks'  early  experience  at  Penikese  under  Louis 
Agassiz  must  have  had  a  great  effect  upon  him.  From  that  time 
on  his  interest  in  marine  zoology  was  one  of  the  dominant  influ- 
ences in  his  life.  One  of  his  first  important  acts  at  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University  was  to  organize  (in  1878)  a  movable  seaside 
station  under  the  name  of  the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory 
and  during  the  following  twenty-eight  years  he  was  constantly 
to  be  found  during  the  warmer  season  at  some  point  on  the 
coast  or  in  the  West  Indies  accompanied  by  a  party  of  students, 
all  engaged  in  the  study  of  marine  life. 

The  importance  of  this  Laboratory  in  the  development  of  the 
biological  department  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  and  in 
the  general  advance  of  zoology  in  America  may  be  estimated  from 
the  large  number  of  students  who  worked  at  the  laboratory  and 

9  Professor  E.    G.   Conklin,    Princeton    University,    in    National    Academy 
Biographical  Memoirs,  vol.  7. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  19 

the  large  number  of  papers  which  they  published.  Doctor  Brooks 
expected  all  of  his  graduate  students  fco  spend  a  season  or  more 
at  this  laboratory.  He  rightly  estimated  such  work  as  the  most 
valuable  experience  a  beginner  could  have,  for  in  this  way  the 
student  became  acquainted  with  animals  under  natural  condi- 
tions; he  had  the  opportunity  of  laying  a  broad  foundation  for 
his  future  work  as  a  naturalist,  of  finding  for  himself  some  matters 
to  investigate,  and  thus  early  to  acquire  the  mental  habit  of  the 
independent  investigator. 

The  Chesapeake  Laboratory,  as  said,  was  not  limited  to  one 
place.  For  the  first  few  years  of  its  existence  it  was  located  at 
several  different  points  on  Chesapeake  Bay;  afterwards  it  was 
located  at  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  then  at  different  places  in 
the  Bahama  Islands,  and  finally  in  Jamaica.  In  the  various 
expeditions  of  Brooks  and  his  students  to  these  different  places 
they  made  not  only  a  biological  survey  of  each  region,  but  they 
did  work  of  most  fundamental  and  far-reaching  importance 
on  the  various  groups  of  animals  found.  Out  of  these  expeditions 
has  grown  the  beautiful  and  permanent  station  of  the  U.  S. 
Fisheries  Bureau  at  Beaufort,  North  Carolina,  in  which  Brooks 
took  great  interest  and  pride.  It  was  on  these  expeditions  that 
his  students  came  to  know  him  most  intimately  and  affectionately. 
In  the  memory  of  each  of  them  is  fixed  some  scene  of  his  enthu- 
siasm over  the  discovery  of  a  rare  form  or  of  an  unknown  stage  in 
some  life  history;  his  long  vigils  full  of  exciting  discoveries;  his 
quiet  talks  on  nature  and  philosophy. 

The  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory  occupied  so  large  a 
place  in  the  life  and  work  of  Professor  Brooks  that  it  seems  desir- 
able to  reproduce  here,  in  his  own  words,  a  more  detailed  account 
of  the  aims  and  history  of  that  laboratory  during  its  first  nine 
years.  The  following  is  taken  from  a  report  by  Professor  Brooks 
on  " The  Zoological  Work  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1878- 
86, "  published  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol. 
6,  No.  54: 

In  natural  science  the  policy  of  the  University  is  to  promote  the  study 
of  life,  rather  than  to  accumulate  specimens:  and  since  natural  laws  are 
best  studied  in  their  simplest  manifestations,  much  attention  has  been 


18  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

Carnegie  Laboratory  at  Tortugas  I  was  much  impressed  with 
his  broad  kindliness  and  tolerance  of  spirit  and  with  his  interest 
in  the  world.  The  force  and  independence  of  his  character  also 
were  obvious  and  it  was  clear  that  he  would  have  been  a  deep 
student  of  living  things  under  any  conditions  of  life.  He  was  a 
thinker  even  more  than  an  observer.  He  was  the  follower  of  no 
school,  and  few  men  have  been  so  little  dominated  by  the  thoughts 
of  the  world  around  them. 

Still  it  was  not  his  power  and  originality  alone  that  made  him 
great  and  reverenced  among  us.  It  was  his  spirit  that  led  us 
onward  in  our  science.  The  little  boy  who  studied  dragon  flies 
in  the  pool  of  his  father's  yard  had  had  many  years  pass  over  him, 
yet  in  his  simple  wondering  love  of  nature  he  remained  as  in  his 
childhood  days.  This  deep  reverence  for  the  universe  of  which 
he  felt  he  formed  so  small  a  part,  made  him  careless  of  many  things 
we  deem  important  in  our  daily  life,  for  his  thoughts  were  not 
upon  things  of  the  moment  but  were  far  beyond  in  the  border- 
land between  the  known  and  the  unknown. 

THE  CHESAPEAKE  ZOOLOGICAL  LABORATORY9 

Professor  Brooks'  early  experience  at  Penikese  under  Louis 
Agassiz  must  have  had  a  great  effect  upon  him.  From  that  time 
on  his  interest  in  marine  zoology  was  one  of  the  dominant  influ- 
ences in  his  life.  One  of  his  first  important  acts  at  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University  was  to  organize  (in  1878)  a  movable  seaside 
station  under  the  name  of  the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory 
and  during  the  following  twenty-eight  years  he  was  constantly 
to  be  found  during  the  warmer  season  at  some  point  on  the 
coast  or  in  the  West  Indies  accompanied  by  a  party  of  students, 
all  engaged  in  the  study  of  marine  life. 

The  importance  of  this  Laboratory  in  the  development  of  the 
biological  department  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  and  in 
the  general  advance  of  zoology  in  America  may  be  estimated  from 
the  large  number  of  students  who  worked  at  the  laboratory  and 

9  Professor  E.    G.   Conklin,    Princeton    University,    in    National    Academy 
Biographical  Memoirs,  vol.  7. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  19 

the  large  number  of  papers  which  they  published.  Doctor  Brooks 
expected  all  of  his  graduate  students  to  spend  a  season  or  more 
at  this  laboratory.  He  rightly  estimated  such  work  as  the  most 
valuable  experience  a  beginner  could  have,  for  in  this  way  the 
student  became  acquainted  with  animals  under  naturaL  condi- 
tions; he  had  the  opportunity  of  laying  a  broad  foundation  for 
his  future  work  as  a  naturalist,  of  finding  for  himself  some  matters 
to  investigate,  and  thus  early  to  acquire  the  mental  habit  of  the 
independent  investigator. 

The  Chesapeake  Laboratory,  as  said,  was  not  limited  to  one 
place.  For  the  first  few  years  of  its  existence  it  was  located  at 
several  different  points  on  Chesapeake  Bay;  afterwards  it  was 
located  at  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  then  at  different  places  in 
the  Bahama  Islands,  and  finally  in  Jamaica.  In  the  various 
expeditions  of  Brooks  and  his  students  to  these  different  places 
they  made  not  only  a  biological  survey  of  each  region,  but  they 
did  work  of  most  fundamental  and  far-reaching  importance 
on  the  various  groups  of  animals  found.  Out  of  these  expeditions 
has  grown  the  beautiful  and  permanent  station  of  the  U.  S. 
Fisheries  Bureau  at  Beaufort,  North  Carolina,  in  which  Brooks 
took  great  interest  and  pride.  It  was  on  these  expeditions  that 
his  students  came  to  know  him  most  intimately  and  affectionately. 
In  the  memory  of  eaqh  of  them  is  fixed  some  scene  of  his  enthu- 
siasm over  the  discovery  of  a  rare  form  or  of  an  unknown  stage  in 
some  life  history;  his  long  vigils  full  of  exciting  discoveries;  his 
quiet  talks  on  nature  and  philosophy. 

The  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory  occupied  so  large  a 
place  in  the  life  and  work  of  Professor  Brooks  that  it  seems  desir- 
able to  reproduce  here,  in  his  own  words,  a  more  detailed  account 
of  the  aims  and  history  of  that  laboratory  during  its  first  nine 
years.  The  following  is  taken  from  a  report  by  Professor  Brooks 
on  "The  Zoological  Work  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1878  - 
86,"  published  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol. 
6,  No.  54: 

In  natural  science  the  policy  of  the  University  is  to  promote  the  study 
of  life,  rather  than  to  accumulate  specimens:  and  since  natural  laws  are 
best  studied  in  their  simplest  manifestations,  much  attention  has  been 


20  WILLIAM    KEITH   BROOKS 

given  to  the  investigation  of  the  simpler  forms  of  life,  with  confidence 
that  this  will  ultimately  contribute  to  a  clearer  insight  into  all  vital 
phenomena. 

The  oldest  forms  of  life  are  marine:  every  great  group  of  animals  is 
represented  in  the  ocean,  while  many  important  and  instructive  groups 
have  no  terrestrial  representatives;  omitting  the  insects,  more  than  four- 
fifths  of  the  known  species  of  animals  are  marine,  and  the  total  amount 
of  animal  life  in  the  ocean  is  incomparably  greater  than  upon  the  land. 
In  a  word,  the  ocean  is  now,  as  it  has  been  at  all  stages  in  the  earth's 
history,  the  home  of  life;  and  it  is  there,  and  there  only,  that  we  find  the 
living  representatives  of  the  oldest  fossils,  and  are  thus  enabled  to  study 
the  continuous  history  of  life  from  its  simplest  to  its  most  complex 
manifestations. 

On  the  sand  flats  at  the  mouth  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  we  find,  living 
side  by  side,  animals  like  Lingula/Amphioxus,  Limulus  and  Balanoglos- 
sus,  which  are  the  representatives  of  some  of  the  oldest  and  most  primi- 
tive types  of  animal  life ;  and  all  attempts  to  trace  out  the  natural  rela- 
tionships of  any  group  of  animals,  lead  us  at  once  to  forms  which  are 
found  only  in  the  ocean. 

The  animals  which  have  contributed  most  extensively  to  the  formation 
of  the  earth's  crust,  the  corals  and  foraminifera  and  radiolarians,  abound 
in  the  ocean  to-day,  and  it  is  only  by  studying  their  life,  by  observations 
at  the  seashore,  that  we  can  understand  and  interpret  their  geological 
influence. 

Nearly  every  one  of  the  great  generalizations  of  morphology  is  based 
upon  the  study  of  marine  animals,  and  most  of  the  problems  which  are 
now  awaiting  a  solution  must  be  answered  in  the  same  way. 

For  these  reasons  our  chief  aim  in  zoology  and  animal  morphology 
has  been  to  provide  means  for  research  upon  the  marine  animals  of  the 
Atlantic  coast,  and  for  nine  years,  successive  parties,  composed  of  instruc- 
tors, fellows  and  students  in  this  department,  together  with  instructors 
and  advanced  students  from  other  institutions  have  spent  at  the  sea- 
shore all  the  months  in  which  marine  work  is  practicable.  Their  time  and 
energy  have  been  devoted  to  research  rather  than  to  the  preservation  of 
collections,  and  the  wisdom  of  this  course  can  be  estimated  by  examina- 
tion of  the  accompanying  list  of  publications  [here  omitted] ;  all  of  which 
are  based,  either  in  part  or  entirely,  upon  researches  which  we  have 
carried  on  at  the  seashore. 

The  wisdom  of  our  policy  is  well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  leading 
naturalist  of  America,  himself  the  head  of  one  of  the  largest  scientific 


A     SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  21 

collections  in  the  world,  says  in  his  annual  report  for  1884,10  that  the 
expenses  of  an  immense  natural-history  collection  are  so  great  that  it 
would  be  far  cheaper,  with  the  present  facilities  and  the  cost  of  travel, 
to  supply  the  student  with  the  necessary  funds  for  valuable  researches, 
than  to  go  on  for  years  spending  in  salaries  of  curators  and  the  care  of 
collections,  sums  of  money  which,  if  spent  in  a  different  manner,  in 
promoting  original  investigation  in  the  field  or  in  the  laboratory  and  in 
providing  means  for  the  publication  of  such  original  researches,  would 
do  far  more  towards  the  promotion  of  natural,  history  than  our  past  meth- 
ods of  spending  our  resources. 

This  fact  has  become  widely  recognized  during  the  last  ten  years, 
as  is  shown  by  the  establishment  of  marine  laboratories  by  several  of 
the  European  institutions  of  learning;  and  in  the  summers  of  1883  and 
1884  we  had  with  us  at  our  laboratory  a  young  English  naturalist  (Wm. 
Bateson)  who  had  been  provided  by  the  Royal  Society  of  London  with 
funds  for  his  researches,  the  results  of  which  have  recently  been  published 
in  England. 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University  was  among  the  first  to  recognize  and 
act  upon  this  new  departure  in  zoology,  and  our  little  marine  station 
is  almost  as  old  as  the  great  Naples  laboratory.  Briefly  stated  its  history 
is  as  follows : 

In  1878  a  small  appropriation  was  made  to  enable  a  party  of  biologists 
from  the  University  to  spend  a  few  weeks  at  the  seashore  in  the  st.idy  of 
marine  zoology.  Through  the  influence  of  Maj.  Gen.  Q.  A.  Gillmore, 
the  Secretary  of  War  permitted  us  to  occupy  the  vacant  building  at 
Fort  Wool.  Prof.  Spencer  F.  Baird  also  exerted  his  influence  with  the 
Secretary  of  War  in  our  behalf,  and  aided  us  in  many  other  ways;  fur- 
nishing us  with  dredging  apparatus  and  with  three  small  row-boats. 
The  scientific  results  of  our  season's  work  were  printed  in  an  illustrated 
volume,  the  cost  of  publishing  which  was  borne  by  the  following  citizens 
of  Baltimore :  Samuel  M.  Shoemaker,  John  W.  Garrett,  John  W.  McCoy, 
Enoch  Pratt,  P.  R.  Uhler,  T.  B.  Ferguson,  Dr.  Geo.  Reuling,  President 
Gilman,  Professor  Martin  and  others. 

In  1879  the  appropriation  for  the  maintenance  of  the  laboratory  was 
renewed,  and  in  order  to  present  an  opportunity  for  studying  the  oyster 
beds  of  Maryland,  the  laboratory  was  opened  in  three  of  the  barges  of 
the  Maryland  Fish  Commission  at  Crisfield,  Maryland,  a  point  which 
proved  to  be  very  unfavorable.  Maj.  T.  B.  Ferguson,  the  State  Fish 
Commissioner,  not  only  provided  the  barges  for  our  accommodation, 

10  Report  of  the  Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology,  Cambridge,  Mass.  • 


22  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

but  he  also  fitted  the  steam  yacht  Lookout  with,  dredging  apparatus,  and 
rendered  us  valuable  help  in  dredging  and  collecting.  Through  his  influ- 
ence a  small  steam  launch  was  also  detailed  from  the  U.  S.  Navy  for 
our  use. 

The  next  year  the  Trustees  of  the  University  voted  to  continue  the 
laboratory  for  three  years  more,  1880-1-2,  and  they  provided  a  liberal 
annual  appropriation  of  $1,000  for  current  expenses,  which  was  renewed 
annually  in  1883-4-5-6,  and  was  expended  in  rent,  wages,  fuel,  laboratory 
supplies,  repairs,  etc.  They  also  appropriated  the  sum  of  $4,500  for 
permanent  outfit,  and  most  of  this  was  used  in  the  purchase  of  two  boats; 
a  Herreshoff  steam  launch  twenty-seven  feet  long  and  eight  feet  beam, 
and  a  center-board  sloop  forty-seven  feet  long  and  fourteen  feet  beam. 

After  an  examination  of  all  the  available  localities  the  town  of  Beau- 
fort, N.  C.,  about  four  hundred  miles  south  of  Baltimore,  was  selected 
as  the  site  for  the  laboratory,  and  a  vacant  house,  suitable  for  the  accom- 
modation of  a  small  party,  was  found  and  rented  as  a  laboratory  and  lodg- 
ings for  the  party,  and  it  has  been  occupied  during  the  seasons  of  1880- 
1-2-4-5,  and  by  two  students  in  1886.  As  the  director  was,  in  1883,  a 
member  of  the  Maryland  Oyster  Commission,  the  outfit  of  the  laboratory 
was  that  year  moved  from  Beaufort  into  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  we 
occupied  a  building  which  we  rented  from  the  Normal  School  at  Hamp- 
ton, Va.  As  Hampton  proved  to  be  a  very  unfavorable  place  for  our 
work  we  returned  to  Beaufort  the  next  year,  and  we  have  accordingly 
spent  five  seasons  at  Beaufort. 

During  the  season  of  1886  the  zoological  students  of  the  University 
were  stationed  at  three  widely  separated  points  of  the  seacoast.  A  party 
of  seven  under  my  direction  visited  the  Bahama  Islands,  two  were  at 
Beaufort,  and  one  occupied  the  University  table  at  the  station  of  the 
U.  S.  Fish  Commission  at  Woods  Hole. 

The  party  which  visited  the  Bahamas  consisted  of  seven  persons,  and 
our  expedition  occupied  two  months,  about  half  of  this  being  consumed 
by  the  journey. 

The  season  which  is  most  suitable  for  our  work  ends  in  July,  and  we  had 
hoped  to  reach  the  Islands  in  time  for  ten  or  twelve  weeks  of  work  there, 
but  the  difficulty  which  I  experienced  in  my  attempts  to  obtain  a  proper 
vessel  delayed  us  in  Baltimore,  and  as  we  met  with  many  delays  after 
we  started,  we  were  nearly  three  weeks  in  reaching  our  destination. 

We  stopped  at  Beaufort  to  ship  our  laboratory  outfit  and  furniture, 
but  the  vessel,  a  schooner  of  49  tons,  was  so  small  that  all  the  available 
space  was  needed  for  our  accommodation,  and  we  were  forced  to  leave 
part  of  our  outfit  behind  at  Beaufort. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  23 

We  reached  our  destination,  Green  Turtle  Key,  on  June  2nd,  and  re- 
mained there  until  July  1st.  The  fauna  proved  to  be  so  rich  and  varied 
and  so  easily  accessible  that  we  were  able  to  do  good  work,  notwithstand- 
ing the  shortness  of  our  stay  and  the  very  primitive  character  of  our  lab- 
oratory. This  was  a  small  dwelling  house  which  we  rented.  It  was  not 
very  well  adapted  for  our  purposes,  and  we  occupied  as  lodgings  the 
rooms  which  we  used  as  work-rooms. 

Record  of  the  various  sessions 

For  the  following  brief  records  of  the  various  sessions  we  are 
indebted  in  large  part  to  Prof.  E.  A.  Andrews. 

1878:  8  weeks,  Ft.  Wool,  Virginia;  7  members.  Brooks  studied  em- 
bryology of  Lingula. 

1879:  June  25-August  8,  Crisfield,  Maryland;  11  members.  Brooks 
studied  the  oyster.  Three  barges  served  as  laboratory  and 
quarters.  Swarms  ofmosquitos  led  to  the  abandonment  of 
this  locality  early  in  August,  and  the  removal  of  the  labora- 
tory to  Ft.  Wool,  until  September  15. 

1880:  April  23-September  30,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  6  members. 
Laboratory  and  quarters  were  in  the  Gibbs  house.  A  steam 
launch  was  bought  and  the  laboratory  equipped  by  means  of 
an  appropriation  from  the  University. 

1881:  May  2-end  of  August,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  12  members.; 
An  " Elementary  Seaside  School"  had  been  announced,  with 
lectures  by  Brooks  and  S.  F.  Clarke;  fee  for  the  course,  $25. 

1882 :     May  1-end  of  September,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  8  members. 

1883 :  May  1-October  1,  Hampton,  Virginia.  As  a  member  of  the  Mary- 
land Oyster  Commission  Brooks  was  obliged  to  spend  this 
summer  on  the  Chesapeake.  The  new  machine  shop  of 
the  Hampton  Institute  was  rented  as  a  laboratory,  and  a 
fast  sloop  was  added  to  the  equipment.  Wm.  Bateson  there 
joined  the  party  to  study  the  development  of  Balanoglossus. 

1884:  June  1 -September  19,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  10  members. 
The  illness  of  Brooks  obliged  him  to  return  after  a  month, 
leaving  the  laboratory  in  charge  of  H.  W.  Conn.  Bateson, 
who  was  again  with  the  party,  was  also  seriously  ill. 

1885:  May  23-September  15,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  11  members. 
Brooks  became  a  licensed  pilot  to  take  the  steam  launch  in 
and  out  of  Beaufort  Inlet. 


24  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

1886:  June  2-July  1,  Green  Turtle  Key,  Abaco,  Bahamas;  7  members. 
The  party  left  Baltimore,  May  1,  in  a  small  Bay  schooner, 
chartered  by  the  day,  with  Brooks  as  pilot.  With  head  winds, 
mishaps  and  a  stop  at  Beaufort  to  take  on  laboratory  furni- 
ture they  did  not  reach  their  destination  until  June  2. 

1887:  March  1-July  1,  Nassau,  Bahamas;  12  members.  After  this 
session,  owing  to  financial  losses  on  the  part  of  the  Uni- 
versity, the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory  was  tem- 
porarily suspended  and  its  outfit  dispersed. 

1888  and  1889:  Brooks,  with  some  of  his  students,  was  at  Woods  Hole, 
Massachusetts,  as  naturalist  in  charge  of  the  U.  S.  Fish 
Commission  Station. 

1891:  May  26-September  1,  Kingston,  Jamaica;  15  members.  The 
Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory  was  established  at  Port 
Henderson,  on  the  harbor  opposite  Kingston. 

1892:  A  party  of  three,  in  charge  of  Professor  Andrews,  was  located 
at  Alice  Town,  North  Bimini,  Bahamas.  Brooks  did  not  go. 

1893:  April  20-July  23,  Port  Henderson,  Jamaica;  7  members.  Brooks 
did  not  go  and  Dr.  R.  P.  Bigelow  was  acting  director. 

1894:  April  7- July  7,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  9  members.  Brooks 
was  present. 

1895:  June  6-August  13,  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  4  members.  Doc- 
tor Sigerfoos  was  acting  director;  Brooks  was  not  pre- 
sent. 

1896:  April  29-July  30,  Port  Henderson,  Jamaica;  4  members.  Dr. 
F.  S.  Conant  was  acting  director;  Brooks  was  there  for  a 
while. 

1897:  June-September,  Port  Antonio,  Jamaica;  12  members.  Prof. 
James  Ellis  Humphrey  was  acting  director.  Humphrey 
died  there  of  yellow  fever,  August  12;  Dr.  Franklin  Story 
Conant  contracted  the  fever  there,  and  died  on  his  return 
to  Boston  in  September. 

1898:  Beaufort,  North  Carolina;  6  members.  Prof.  H.  V.  Wilson  was 
director.  In  this  and  all  subsequent  years  students  went, 
with  little  or  no  aid  from  the  University,  to  the  U.  S.  Fish 
Commission  Station  at  Beaufort. 

1901-1906:  Brooks  was  again  at  Beaufort  in  1901  and  1903,  and  at 
the  Marine  Laboratory  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  at  Dry 
Tortugas,  Florida,  in  1905  and  1906. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  25 

PROFESSOR  BROOKS  AS  AN  INVESTIGATOR  AND  WRITER 

Professor  Brooks'  investigations  lay  mainly  in  the  field  of 
animal  morphology  and  embryology.  In  this  field  he  was  an 
acute  observer  possessed  of  great  patience  and  pertinacity.  His 
philosophic  insight  and  breadth  of  view,  moreover,  made  him 
alert  to  the  significance  of  what  he  observed,  and  his  memoirs 
are  hence  notable  for  their  suggestive  and  broad  theoretical  dis- 
cussions. Fundamental  resemblances  in  the  development  and 
anatomy  of  forms  were  the  phenomena  in  which  he  was  especially 
interested.  Interrelationships  between  groups  and  the  phyloge- 
netic  value  of  embryonic  and  larval  characteristics  were  the  specu- 
lative problems  on  which  he  brought  his  discoveries  to  bear.  In 
reaching  conclusions  from  facts  he  showed  the  caution  of  the 
observer  who  had  seen  much,  and  his  soundness  of  judgment  is 
widely  recognized.  Nevertheless  he  was  at  times  not  averse  to 
bold  speculation,  as  may  be  seen  in  his  instructive  discussion  of 
the  nature  of  the  early  pre-cambrian  fauna,  and  the  origin  of  the 
existing  great  groups  of  animals  (The  Genus  Salpa  and  The 
Foundations  of  Zoology) .  His  morphological  studies  embraced  a 
number  of  invertebrate  groups,  pelagic  tunicates,  mollusks,  mol- 
luscoidea,  Crustacea,  and  hydromedusse. 

The  illustrations  in  Brooks'  memoirs  are  striking.  It  was  his 
practice  to  make  them  himself,  and  they  have  the  artistic  excel- 
lence combined  with  truthfulness  of  detail  found  only  in  the  work 
of  the  artist-naturalist.  Most  of  his  drawings  were  in  pen  and 
ink,  the  shaded  parts  stippled,  and  made  on  a  large  scale  suitable 
for  reduction.  They  represented  much  labor,  but  Brooks  was  a 
quick  worker  in  this  style,  which  he  preferred  above  all  others. 
The  mechanical  process  of  stippling  aided  him,  he  maintained,  to 
abstract  his  mind  and  to  follow  out  lines  of  thought  quite  unrelated 
to  the  drawing.  With  respect  to  his  artistic  skill  Brooks  was  with- 
out egotism,  and  when  the  drawings  were  once  reproduced  the 
originals  were  thrown  away. 

Together  with  skill  in  drawing  Professor  Brooks  was  unusually 
fortunate  in  possessing  literary  power  in  a  marked  degree.  His 
subject  is  presented  in  an  order  and  manner  that  makes  it  easy 


26  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

for  the  reader  to  follow,  and  his  command  of  language  is  admir- 
ably suited  to  the  needs  of  the  naturalist.  His  technical  papers 
always  show  order  and  proportion  and  a  fine  precision  in  the  use 
of  words.  These  qualities  appear  too  in  his  one  text-book,  the 
"  Handbook  of  Invertebrate  Zoology ,"  a  manual  so  excellent  that 
it  has  been  a  model  for  many  later  books  in  this  field.  His  popular 
articles  and  lectures  reveal  the  same  logical  habit  of  mind,  but 
in  these  it  is  the  graphic  description  that  especially  seizes  the  mind 
of  the  reader.  Particularly  pleasing  and  effective  are  the  descrip- 
tions of  scenes  of  nature  in  which  animals  dominate,  or  of  the  be- 
havior of  individual  animals.  In  the  argumentative  portions  of 
his  later  writings  dealing  with  heredity  and  the  philosophical 
aspects  of  nature,  Brooks  is  not  always  easy  to  follow.  He  leaves 
a  good  deal  of  responsibility  on  the  reader.  Yet  these  writings 
contain  much  that  is  beautiful  in  style  as  well  as  in  idea,  much 
that  is  very  quotable,  real  "  nuggets  of  wisdom,  products  of  deep 
thought  as  well  as  of  careful  observation."11 

Researches  on  the  Tunicata.12  Brooks'  first  contributions  on 
the  Salpidse  appeared  in  1875-76.  He  observed  that  the  eggs, 
which  are  borne  by  the  individuals  of  the  chain,  arise  really  in 
the  solitary  Salpa  and  are  passed  into  the  stolon  early  in  its  devel- 
opment. Each  individual  of  the  chain  receives  usually  one  (in 
some  species  more)  of  these  eggs  and  serves  as  nurse  to  the  embryo 
which  comes  from  it.  Salpa,  therefore,  does  not  show  true  alter- 
nation of  generations,  and  Chamisso's  discovery  of  an  ap- 
parent metagenesis  in  this  form  must  be  looked  on  as  a  misin- 
terpretation of  the  phenomena.  In  his  later  study  Brooks  found 
that  the  spermatozoa  as  well  as  the  eggs  come  from  the  mass  of 
germ  cells  lying  in  the  ventral  part  of  the  solitary  Salpa,  so  that 
the  solitary  Salpa  is  in  reality  a  potential  bisexual  animal. 

Brooks  worked  out  in  far  greater  detail  and  with  greater  clear- 
ness than  any  other  student  the  development  of  the  buds  upon  the 
stolon,  and  showed  the  fundamental  harmony  of  the  process  of 

11  President  D.  8.  Jordan. 

"  Professor  M.  M.  Metcalf,  Oberlin  College. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  27 

budding  in  Salpa  with  that  in  Pyrosoma  and  in  the  Clavelinidae 
among  the  ascidians.  The  stolon  is  bilaterally  symmetrical,  its 
planes  of  symmetry  coinciding  with  those  of  the  solitary  Salpa 
which  bears  it,  and  at  first  the  planes  of  symmetry  of  every 
member  of  the  chain  coincide  with  those  of  the  stolon^and  the 
solitary  Salpa.  Very  soon,  however,  a  twisting  of  the  chain  occurs 
which  leads  to  the  formation  of  a  double  row  of  Salpse,  each  row 
with  the  dorsal  surfaces  of  its  members  turned  outward  while  the 
ventral  surfaces  of  the  two  rows  are  turned  toward  one  another, 
and  the  right  sides  of  the  members  of  one  row  and  the  left  sides  of 
those  of  the  other  row  are  turned  toward  the  base  of  the  stolon. 

He  showed  that  the  placenta  of  Salpa  does  not  resemble  the 
mammalian  placenta  in  its  method  of  nourishing  the  embryo, 
but  that  certain  cells  in  the  placenta,  taking  nourishment  from 
the  blood  stream  of  the  nurse  (the  chain.  Salpa),  grow  to  very 
large  size,  then  lose  their  connection  with  the  placenta  and  wander 
to  different  parts  of  the  embryo,  where  they  break  down  and  nour- 
ish the  growing  tissues  of  the  embryo. 

Salensky's  generally  accurate  work  upon  the  embryology  of 
many  species  of  Salpa  contained  one  fundamental  error,  since 
he  described  the  embryos  as  arising  not  from  true  blastomeres 
but  from  follicle  cells,  the  blastomeres  degenerating  early  in  the 
developmental  history.  Brooks,  recognizing  the  improbability 
of  any  such  conditions,  succeeded  in  tracing  the  development  of 
the  egg  itself  until  from  its  blastomeres  the  organs  arise.  He  found 
that  the  blastomeres  develop  very  slowly;  that  the  follicle  cells, 
on  the  other  hand,  proliferate  very  rapidly  and  take  on  the  form 
of  the  rudiments  of  the  several  organs,  the  organs  being  thus 
blocked  out  in  these  extra-embryonic  cells,  while  as  yet  the  blas- 
tomeres are  very  few  in  number.  Later  the  blastomeres  multiply 
and  pass  into  the  different  parts  of  the  mold  thus  formed  for  them 
by  the  follicle  cells,  and  gradually  use  as  food  the  degenerating 
follicle  cells  that  surround  them. 

In  his  latest,  unpublished  work  he  traced  the  cleavage  of  the 
egg;  he  found  a  clear  gastrula  arising  by  invagination  from  the  group 
of  blastomeres;  he  observed  the  hollow  dorsal  nerve  tube,  finding 
it  at  first  considerably  elongated;  he  found  a  postero-dorsal  rod 


28  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

of  blastomeres,  the  notochord,  which  later  for  the  most  part 
passed  into  a  postero-ventral  protuberance  there  to  degenerate 
and  share  in  the  formation  of  the  eleoblast  which  he  thus  clearly 
showed  to  be  a  degenerate  tail ;  at  one  time  he  was  studying  struct- 
ures in  some  of  his  embryos  which  seemed  to  be  a  pair  of  true 
stigmata,  but  his  final  decision  in  regard  to  them  is  unknown. 

Brooks'  embryological  work  convinced  him  that  Salpa,  though 
now  perfectly  adapted  for  pelagic  life,  has  not  always  been  pelagic, 
but  that  it  is  descended  from  sessile  forms  like  the  ascidians,  and 
that  some  of  the  features  which  so  well  adapt  Salpa  for  a  pelagic 
existence  arose  during  this  sessile  stage  in  its  ancestry,  or  were 
then  much  improved  over  the  earlier  condition  illustrated  in 
Appendicularia.  Having  found  this  most  typically  pelagic  of 
all  pelagic  animals  to  be  a  migrant  from  the  ocean  bottom,  he 
was  led  to  review  the  whole  pelagic  fauna,  and  as  a  result  of  this 
review  reached  the  conclusion  that  nearly  all  pelagic  animals  of 
considerable  size  or  complex  structure  have  had  a  similar  history 
and  are  descended  from  forms  that  once  lived  on  or  near  the  ocean 
bottom. 

The  memoirs  upon  the  Salpidae  are  of  such  comprehensive 
character  and  fundamental  importance  that  they  must  be  desig- 
nated as  monumental.  This  massive  character  of  his  work, 
together  with  the  soundness  of  judgment  displayed,  has  unquest- 
ionably made  Brooks  the  foremost  student  of  the  group.  It 
is  he,  more  than  all  others,  who  succeeded  in  showing  that  beneath 
the  perplexing  maze  of  secondary  phenomena  which  so  obscures 
the  development  of  this  group,  there  is  a  general  conformity  to  the 
development  of  other  chordates. 

Researches  on  the  Crustacea.1*  Professor  Brooks'  interest  in 
the  Crustacea  began  early,  for  as  a  boy  he  had  collected  the  fresh- 
water shrimp,  Palaemonetes  exilipes,  in  the  Rocky  River  near  his 
Cleveland  home,  and  in  the  marine  laboratory  of  Alexander 
Agassiz  he  had  observed  with  astonishment  "the  lively  interest 
in  shells,"  displayed  by  the  newly  hatched  hermit  crabs.  That 

13  Professor  F.  H.  Herrick,  Western  Reserve  University. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  29 

the  impressions  thus  made  were  strong  may  be  gathered  from  the 
fact  that  many  years  later  he  urged  the  writer  to  study  the  devel- 
opment of  this  shrimp,  if  possible,  and  that  after  the  lapse  of 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  he  wrote  the  graphic  account  of  the 
behavior  of  the  hermit  crab  which  appears  in  the  introductory 
lecture  of  his  work  on  "The  Foundations  of  Zoology. " 

Altogether  there  are  about  fifteen  papers  on  the  embryology, 
metamorphosis,  habits  and  classification  of  the  higher  Crustacea 
which  singly  or  jointly  bear  the  name  of  Brooks,  and  all  were 
issued  during  a  period  of  fourteen  years,  from  1879  to  1892.  More- 
over, his  " Handbook  of  Invertebrate  Zoology"  contains  much 
original  matter  pertaining  to  this  class  of  animals.  His  first  con- 
tribution in  this  field  was  on  the  larval  stages  of  the  stomatopod, 
Squilla  empusa,  and  represented  the  first  "  Scientific  Results  of 
the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory"  for  1878,  and  it  was 
upon  tne  adults  and  the  larva?  of  this  sub-order  that  some  of  his 
most  notable  work  was  later  accomplished. 

At  Beaufort,  North  Carolina,  during  the  season  of  1880,  Brooks' 
interest  in  Crustacea  deepened,  for  he  saw  in  their  structure  and 
in  the  metamorphosis  which  they  so  beautifully  displayed,  a 
means  of  attacking  several  larger  problems,  such  as  "the  laws  of 
larval  development,"  the  analysis  of  secondary  adaptations,  and 
the  meaning  of  metamerism  in  both  the  lower  and  higher  animals. 
He  had  pondered  over  the  works  of  Professor  Claus  on  crustacean 
development  and  morphology,  and  for  upwards  of  four  years,  from 
1880  to  1883,  his  own  elaborate  notes  and  pen  drawings  on  the 
Macrura  had  grown  to  such  an  extent  that  they  filled  a  large 
portfolio.  From  this  source  he  drew  materials  from  time  to  time 
for  publication,  as  certain  subjects  happened  to  engage  his  special 
attention.  Without  doubt  he  had  contemplated  an  extended 
monograph,  which  was  only  partially  fulfilled  in  the  work  on 
"The  Embryology  and  Metamorphosis  of  the  Macrura,"  pub- 
lished in  1892. 

The  works  by  which  Brooks  will  be  best  known  to  all  future 
students  of  crustacean  zoology  are  undoubtedly  his  monograph 
on  "Lucifer:  A  Study  in  Morphology,"  published  in  the  Philoso- 
phical Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Great  Britain  for 


30  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

1882,  and  his  "  Report  on  the  Stomatopoda,"  which  appeared  as 
part  of  the  sixteenth  volume  of  the  Scientific  results  of  the  Chal- 
lenger Expedition  in  1886.  In  the  former  work,  we  are  told  that 
in  April  1880,  he  found  at  Beaufort  "a  single  Lucifer  with  two 
eggs  attached  to  one  of  its  appendages,"  and  that  he  was  "led 
by  the  great  importance  and  interest  of  the  subject  to  make  every 
effort  to  trace  its  life-history. "  Success  came  only  after  months 
of  repeated  failure,  when  at  last  he  could  say  with  evident  satis- 
faction: "I  have  seen  the  eggs  of  Lucifer  pass  out  of  the  oviduct. 
I  have  seen  the  Nauplius  embryo  escape  from  the  same  egg  which 
I  had  seen  laid,  and  I  have  traced  every  moult  from  the  Nauplius 
to  the  adult  in  isolated  specimens.  There  is  therefore  no  crusta- 
cean with  the  metamorphosis  of  which  we  are  more  thoroughly 
acquainted  than  we  now  are  with  that  of  this  extremely  interesting 
genus."  Not  only  did  he  discover  that  Lucifer  emerged  from  the 
egg  as  a  true  Nauplius,  but  what  was  even  more  novel,  that  the 
egg  underwent  a  total  and  regular  segmentation,  and  gave  rise  to 
an  egg-gastrula  of  the  invaginate  type.  After  giving  an  exhaustive 
analysis  of  the  developmental  stages  of  Lucifer,  and  comparing 
its  successive  appendages  with  those  of  other  representative  Mala- 
costraca,  he  concludes  that  the  three-jointed  Nauplius  larva  repre- 
sents a  true  ancestor,  that  there  is  essentially  but  one  kind  of 
homology  presented  by  metameric  animals,  and  that,  therefore, 
the  remote  ancestor  of  the  Crustacea  does  not  represent  a  com- 
munity of  once  independent  parts. 

The  monograph  on  the  Stomatopoda  is  distinguished  by  the 
great  ingenuity  shown  in  classifying  all  of  the  known  larvae  of 
this  sub-order,  and  in  tracing  them  to  their  proper  genera,  for 
he  had  no  living  material  to  work  with,  excepting  the  two  species 
from  the  southern  coast  of  the  United  States,  Squilla  empusa  and 
Lysiosquilla  excavatrix,  which  he  had  previously  studied,  and 
which  he  used  for  exact  comparisons  so  far  as  possible.  He  said 
of  the  collection  submitted  to  him,  that  while  it  contained  only 
fifteen  species  of  adults,  eight  of  which  were  new,  it  was  very  rich 
in  larvse.  In  speaking  of  the  eggs,  he  remarked  that  since  they 
were  not  carried  about  by  the  female,  attached  to  her  body  or 
appendages,  as  is  the  rule  in  the  higher  Crustacea,  they  quickly 


A   SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  31 

perished  when  deprived  of  the  constant  current  thus  supplied, 
and  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  procure  them  at  alt,  adding 
that  he  knew  of  no  young  Stomatopod  which  had  been  reared 
from  an  egg  outside  the  burrow  or  in  an  aquarium. 

The  sentence  just  quoted  was  written  in  1885,  and  we-ean  ap- 
preciate the  pleasure  he  must  have  experienced  in  being  able  to  do 
the  very  thing  to  which  he  alludes,  two  years  later  at  Nassau,  for 
on  the  first  or  second  day  after  reaching  the  Bahamas  one  of  his 
students,  Dr.  E.  A.  Andrews,  brought  him  "a  Gonodactylus 
and  a  bunch  of  yellow  eggs/'  which  had  been  broken  out  of  a 
coral  rock.  Feeling  sure  that  at  last  he  was  on  the  track  of  a 
stomatopod's  eggs,  he  started  at  once  for  the  beach,  and  it  was 
not  long,  as  he  tells  us,  before  "the  problem  was  solved,  and  I 
went  home  and  to  bed,  confident  that  I  should  next  day  get  all 
the  embryological  material  I  needed."  The  notable  paper  in 
which  he  has  described  how  a  stomatopod  crustacean  was  for 
the  first  time  reared  from  an  egg,  and  followed  in  all  its  successive 
stages,  alive,  should  not  be  overlooked,  though  appearing  as  a 
chapter  in  another  work  (The  Embryology  and  Metamorphosis 
of  the  Macrura.  Chapter  III.). 

Researches  upon  the  Ccelenterata.14  Exclusive  of  preliminary 
accounts  afterwards  published  in  more  amplified  form,  and  of 
popular  writings,  Professor  Brooks  produced  either  alone,  or  in 
cooperation  with  his  students,  ten  papers  upon  ccelenterates. 
All  are  the  results  of  labors  of  his  maturity,  for  he  was  thirty-two 
years  of  age  when  the  first  was  published.  This  may  account  in 
some  measure  for  the  high  standard  he  maintained  throughout 
these  papers,  for  next  to  Agassiz  we  must  rank  him  as  the  greatest 
student  of  the  ccelenterates  of  our  country. 

The  excellence  of  his  work  depends  not  upon  the  number  of 
species  he  described  as  new  to  science,  for  of  these  he  names  but 
eleven  during  the  whole  twenty-seven  years  covered  by  his  writ- 
ings on  ccelenterates.  It  is  in  the  fields  of  embryology  and  anatomy 
that  Brooks'  work  stands  preeminent;  and  his  life-histories  of 

H  Dr.  A.  G.  Mayer,  Carnegie  Institution. 


32  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

Liriope,  Cunoctantha,  Eutima,  and  Philalidium  McCradyi  are 
classics  of  science  in  their  thoroughness,  wealth  of  accurate  illus- 
tration, and  that  subtle  charm  in  description  which  was  their 
author's  own.  Through  patient  searching  upon  many  a  collecting 
trip  at  Beaufort,  he  was  the  first  to  find  and  describe  the  hydroids 
of  Turritopsis,  Nemopsis,  Phortis,  and  Stomotoca,  while  his 
studies  along  the  shores  of  the  Chesapeake  led  to  discovery  of  the 
ephyrae  and  early  growth-stages  of  the  free  swimming  medusa  of 
Dactylometra. 

His  summers  in  the  Bahamas  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  re- 
markable process  of  the  development  of  medusa-bearing  hydroid 
blastostyles  upon  the  gonads  in  Epenthesis  (Philalidium)  Mc- 
Cradyi. He  also  sectioned  and  beautifully  figured,  the  marginal 
cordyli  of  Laodicea,  and  was  the  first  to  elucidate  their  structure 
and  homologies;  and  from  the  standpoint  of  morphology  his  de- 
scription of  Dichotomia  cannoides  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Amer- 
ican Philosophical  Society  of  Philadelphia,  1903,  may  well  serve 
as  a  model  for  those  who  essay  to  describe  medusae. 

It  was  in  cooperation  with  Brooks  that  Conklin  discovered  that 
in  Physalia  only  male  gonophores  are  found,  while  in  another 
siphonophore,  Rodalia,  only  female  gonophores  occur,  the  infer- 
ence being  that  in  both  forms  the  opposite  sex  is  so  different  from 
the  one  known  that  it  may  have  been  classed  as  a  wholly  different 
genus.  Another  of  his  students,  Rittenhouse,  while  working  under 
Brooks,  gave  an  excellent  account  of  the  early  stages  of  the  devel- 
opment of  Turritopsis. 

Facts  interested  him  but  little  unless  they  led  toward  generali- 
zations, and  thus  it  is  that  he  wrote  but  one  purely  systematic 
paper  upon  ccelenterates,  and  that  all  of  his  other  work  was  directed 
toward  the  study  of  developments  and  homologies  as  indicating 
what  has  been  the  path  of  evolution.  Such  a  problem  as  the  rela- 
tionship between  ccelenterates  and  bilateral  animals  was  accord- 
ingly very  attractive  to  him,  and  he  was  disposed  to  lay  stress 
upon  the  (somewhat  masked)  bilateral  symmetry  discovered  by 
himself  in  Eutima  and  by  Hamann  in  other  hydroids. 

Brooks'  views  were  not  seldom  in  conflict  with  accepted  theories, 
as  when  in  1886  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  remote  ances- 


Reproduced  from  Appletons'  Popular  Science  Monthly.    Copyright,  1899,  by  D.  Appleton  and  C< 


WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS. 

1898. 


A   SKETCH   OF   HIS   LIFE  33 

tor  of  the  hydromedusse  was  a  solitary  free-swimming  hydra  or 
actinula  with  no  medusa-stage  but  probably  with  the  power  to 
multiply  by  budding.  Finally,  however,  becoming  more  perfectly 
adapted  to  a  swimming  life  it  was  converted  into  a  medusa  with 
pulsating  bell,  and  with  sense-organs.  After  this  the  larva  derived 
an  advantage  through  attachment,  and  thus  the  hydroidr  stage 
was  secondarily  produced,  and  then  perpetuated  through  natural 
selection.  It  may  be  said  of  this  theory  that  while  it  has  gained 
no  important  following,  yet  nevertheless  it  has  never  been  dis- 
proven.  It  is  logically  sound,  presents  the  direct  development  of 
certain  medusae  from  a  new  point  of  view,  and  the  future  may  pos- 
sibly show  that  it  rests  on  a  basis  of  truth. 

Researches  on  the  Mollusca  and  the  Molluscoidea.16  Two  of 
Brooks'  first  papers  deal  with  the  lamellibranchs,  one (1874) 
with  an  " organ  of  special  sense"  in  Yoldia,  while  in  the  other 
(1875)  the  development  of  Anodonta  implicata  is  described  in  out* 
line,  and  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  the  larva,  Glochidium,  is 
a  specially  modified  stage  and  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  of 
the  origin  of  the  group.  In  a  paper  "  On  the  Affini ties  of  the  Mol- 
lusca and  Molluscoidea"  (1876)  he  again  approached  phylogenetic 
problems,  and  concluded  that  the  Brachiopoda  have  been  derived 
from  Vermes,  Polyzoa  from  Brachiopoda,  and  the  molluscan 
veliger  (prototype  of  the  Mollusca)  from  Polyzoa.  Later  in  his 
paper  on  the  development  of  Lingula  (1879)  he  held  that  the  Roti- 
fera,  Polyzoa,  and  Veliger  were  three  branches  which  early  diverged 
from  the  vermian  stem.  The  Brachiopoda  he  held  to  be  the  most 
highly  specialized  members  of  the  polyzoan  branch,  the  Mollusca 
the  most  highly  specialized  of  the  Veliger  branch.  For  these  three 
branches  he  proposed  the  name  Trochifera. 

In  his  "Observations  on  the  Early  Stages  in  the  Development 
of  Fresh- Water  Pulmonates"  (1879)  he  observed  the  rhythmical 
nature  of  the  process  of  cleavage,  and  devoted  considerable  atten- 
tion to  the  origin  of  the  germ  layers,  to  the  fate  of  the  blasto- 

16  Professor  G.  A.  Drew,  University  of  Maine. 


THE  JOURNAL  OF   EXPERIMENTAL  ZOOLOGY,  VOL.  9,  NO.   1. 


34  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

pore,  and  the  origin  of  the  digestive  tract.  The  technique  necessary 
for  the  successful  sectioning  of  such  small  bodies  as  snail  eggs 
had  not  been  developed  at  this  time.  Brooks'  observations  were 
therefore  made  exclusively  on  material  studied  in  toto,  and  it  is 
interesting  to  find  that  this  method  of  study  led  him  into  several 
serious  errors.  In  his  paper  on  the  "  Acquisition  and  Loss  of  a 
Food  Yolk  in  Molluscan  Eggs/7  Brooks  devoted  much  attention 
to  what  is  now  known  as  the  yolk  lobe,  or  polar  lobe,  which  he 
regarded  as  a  food  yolk  which  is  disappearing  in  some  forms,  while 
in  others  it  is  being  acquired.  In  a  brief  paper  on  the  "  Develop- 
ment of  the  Digestive  Tract  in  Mollusks"  he  reiterates  his  mis- 
taken view  that  in  gasteropods  and  lamellibranjehs  the  blastopore 
is  converted  into  the  shell  gland.  Not  until  1908  did  he  return  to 
the  gasteropods,  publishing  in  that  year  in  association  with  Bartgis 
McGlone,  one  of  his  students,  a  paper  on  the  origin  of  the  lung 
in  Ampullaria. 

Brooks  has  two  papers  on  the  development  of  cephalopods  pub- 
lished in  1880.  His  important  conclusions  in  these  papers  deal 
with  the  homologies  of  the  cephalopod  yolk  sac,  siphon,  and  arms. 
Numerous  publications  deal  with  the  development  and  propa- 
gation of  the  oyster.  In  1878,  during  the  first  session  of  the  Chesa- 
peake Zoological  Laboratory,  he  attempted  to  find  young  oysters 
in  the  gills  of  the  female,  as  had  been  described  for  the  European 
oyster,  but  without  success.  In  May,  1879,  he  went  to  Crisfield, 
Maryland,  the  center  of  the  oyster  industry  on  the  Chesapeake, 
and  settled  down  to  study  the  problerq  of  the  development  of 
the  oyster.  He  soon  learned  that  artificial  fertilization  was  possi- 
ble, and  that  the  American  oyster  normally  discharges  its  eggs 
and  sperm  into  the  open  water,  where  the  processes  of  fertiliza- 
tion and  development  go  on  independently  of  the  parents.  The 
results  of  his  embryological  studies  on  the  oyster  were  published 
in  full  in  a  report  to  the  Maryland  Fish  Commission  (1880). 
This  paper  was  very  favorably  received  and  was  republished 
in  whole  or  in  part  in  many  American  and  European  journals. 
In  recognition  of  the  importance  of  this  work  he  was  awarded  a 
medal  by  the  Socie*te  d'Acclimatation  of  Paris. 


A   SKETCH   OF  HIS   LIFE  35 

Economic  Work  on  the  Oyster  Fisheries.1*  Brooks'  economic 
work  on  the  oyster  began  in  1882  when  the  Governor  of  Mary- 
land appointed  him  Chairman  of  a  Commission  to  examine  the 
oyster  beds  and  to  advise  as  to  their  protection  and  improvement. 
While  occupying  this  position,  he  was  excused  by  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  from  practically  all  duties  as  teacher  and  investi- 
gator and  for  two  years  he  devoted  his  talents  and  energy  to  the 
work  of  the  Commission.  He  organized  and  carried  on  an  exten- 
sive investigation  of  the  actual  condition  of  the  natural  oyster 
beds  of  Maryland  and  studied  carefully  the  results  of  the  policy 
then  pursued  by  the  State  in  its  work  of  supervising  and  policing 
its  oyster  resources.  He  also  compiled  statistics  from  the  history 
of  the  oyster  industries  of  France  and  the  North  Atlantic  States 
in  order  to  ascertain  and  to  show  the  possibilities  of  oyster  pro- 
duction possessed  by  the  tide  waters  of  Maryland  and  the  condi- 
tions under  which  some  of  these  possibilities  may  be  realized. 

A  detailed  account  of  these  investigations  was  published  in 
January  1884  under  the  title  "Report  of  the  Oyster  Commission 
of  the  State  of  Maryland"  (a  quarto  volume  of  193  pages),  and 
carefully  prepared  plans  for  inaugurating  a  system  of  oyster  cul- 
ture under  private  ownership  and  for  increasing  the  supply  of 
oysters  from  the  public  oysterv  grounds,  were  submitted  to  the 
General  Assembly  for  its  consideration  and  approval. 

The  plans  worked  out  by  Brooks  by  which  the  oyster  resources 
of  the  Chesapeake.Bay  and  its  tributaries  could  be  husbanded  and 
developed,  were  far  in  advance  of  public  sentiment  in  Maryland 
and  were  rejected.  Not  until  1906,  twenty-two  years  later,  did 
the  Legislature  enact  a  general  oyster  culture  law  for  the  entire 
State. 

Professor  Brooks'  active  interesc  in  the  Maryland  oyster 
problem  did  not  end  when  his  connection  with  the  State  Commis- 
sion expired.  He  realized  from  the  character  of  the  discussion  and 
opposition  which  brought  about  the  rejection  of  his  plan  for  oyster 
culture,  that  the  oyster  problem  in  Maryland  is  in  reality  a 
social  and  political  one,  and  he  therefore  set  about  conducting  a 

16  Professor  Caswell  Grave,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 


36  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

long  campaign  of  education.  In  this  he  had  in  mind  to  bring  the 
State  to  realize  the  value  of  the  Chesapeake  for  oyster  production, 
and  the  worth  of  proper  methods  of  supervision  and  cultivation. 
He  was  available  for  semi-popular  lectures,  wrote  magazine  and 
newspaper  articles  on  the  subject  of  oysters,  and  in  1891,  published 
a  treatise  entitled  "The  Oyster,"  a  little  book  that  had  wide 
influence  and  which  was  characterized  by  President  D.  C  Gil- 
man  as  "a  memoir  in  natural  history  and  a  chapter  of  political 
economy/'  in  which  the  life  history  of  the  oyster  is  described  "in 
terms  scientific  enough  to  be  accurate,  not  so  scientific  as  to  be 
hard  of  understanding." 

Dr.  Brooks'  efforts  during  this  period  resulted  in  the  creation 
of  an  intelligent  appreciation  on  the  part  of  the  general  public 
not  only  throughout  Maryland  but  in  all  of  the  Atlantic  States 
as  well,  of  the  value  and  possibilities  of  the  natural  resources  of 
tidal  waters  for  the  production  of  oysters,  and  men  of  large  influ- 
ence were  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  oyster  culture.  This  deep  cumu- 
lative influence  of  Professor  Brooks  oti  the  public  mind  made  him 
one  of  the  most  valuable  citizens  Maryland  has  ever  had.  Others 
carried  to  completion  the  task  of  crystallizing  sentiment  in  favor  of 
oyster  culture,  and  finally  in  1906  the  Maryland  Legislature 
passed  a  law  for  the  protection  and  propagation  of  oysters  along 
substantially  the  line  that  had  been  advocated  by  Brooks.  The 
long  campaign  was  thus  happily  terminated. 

Contribution  to  Anthropology.17  Brooks'  paper  "On  the  Luca- 
yan  Indians"  embodies  the  results  of  an  excursion  into  the  field 
of  physical  anthropology  made  during  two  visits  to  the  Bahama 
Islands  in  connection  with  his  summer  laboratory.  Very  charac- 
teristically, he  became  interested  in  the  history  of  the  islands 
and  in  the  people  who  dwelt  there  when  they  were  discovered 
by  Columbus.  The  skeletal  fragments  which  there  is  reason  to 
believe  represent  remains  of  the  aborigines  are  very  few.  The 
material  which  Brooks  had,  and  which  was  found  in  caves  on 
the  islands,  consisted  of  three  well  preserved  skulls  and  some 

17  Professor  H.  H.  Donaldson,  The  Wistar  Institute. 


A    SKETCH   OF  HIS   LIFE  37 

other  bones  and  fragments  of  bones.  From  these  he  was  able 
to  determine  several  of  the  more  important  physical  characters 
of  that  ill-fated  people  who  have  left  but  a  single  monument,  the 
word  "  hammock." 

In  the  paper  in  question,  which  was  read  before  the  National 
Academy  in  November,  1887,  Brooks  gives  a  series  of  admirable 
plates  artistically  illustrating  the  skulls  described,  and  reaches 
several  conclusions,  which  may  be  summarized  as  follows:  The 
bones  are  thick,  massive  and  dense;  the  skulls  are  of  good  size. 
They  are  highly  brachycephalic  but  at  the  same  time  artifically  de- 
formed in  a  way  which  would  increase  their  brachycephalic  shape. 
There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  people  were  gigantic,  though 
they  were  probably  of  large  size.  From  certain  similarities  to  the 
remains  of  the  inhabitants  of  southern  Florida,  it  is  probable  that 
the  Lucayans  belonged  to  the  same  race. 

Studies  on  Heredity.18  As  early  as  1876  in  a  paper  entitled 
"A  Provisional  Hypothesis  of  Pangenesis"  Brooks  began  to  deal 
with  questions  of  heredity  and  variation.  His  thinking  in  this 
direction  took  shape  and  led  in  1883  to  the  publication  of  a  volume 
under  the  title  of  "The  Law  of  Heredity."  The  central  point  in 
the  theory  here  presented  is  the  conviction  that  the  reproductive 
elements  are,  contrary  to  the  usual  opinion,  not  alike  in  function. 
In  support  of  this  conclusion  the  author  draws  arguments  from 
the  facts  that  hybrid  offspring  resulting  from  reciprocal  crossings 
are  often  very  different;  that  the  offspring  of  a  male  hybrid  and 
the  female  of  a  pure  species  is  much  more  variable  than  the  off- 
spring of  a  female  hybrid  and  the  male  of  a  pure  species;  that  a 
structure  which  is  more  developed  or  of  more  functional  impor- 
tance in  the  male  parent  than  it  is  in  the  female  parent  is  very 
much  more  apt  to  vary  in  the  offspring  than  a  part  which  is  more 
developed  or  more  important  in  the  mother  than  it  is  in  the  father. 
These  and  other  facts  convince  Brooks  that  the  ovum  and  sperm 
cell  are  not  only  different  morphologically,  but  that  they  differ 
profoundly  in  function  as  well. 

18  Professor  H.  V.  Wilson,  University  of  North  Carolina. 


38  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

In  developing  this  idea  into  an  explanatory  theory  of  the  way 
in  which  hereditary  transmission  is  accomplished,  Brooks  borrows 
from  Darwin's  hypothesis  of  pangenesis,  and  assumes ,  the  exis- 
tence of  material  particles,  "gemmules,"  which  are  thrown  off 
from  the  body  cells.  Unlike  Darwin,  however,  he  assumes  that 
such  particles  are  only  thrown  off  at  particular  periods,  when  the 
body  cells  are  disturbed  in  function  through  some  change  in  their 
environment.  The  gemmules  may  penetrate  an  ovum  or  a  bud, 
but  it  is  the  male  germ  cell  which  has  gradually  acquired  during 
the  evolution  of  the  metazoa  the  peculiar  power  to  gather  and 
store  up  gemmules.  The  ovum  on  the  other  hand  has  acquired 
a  very  different  nature.  It  contains  material  particles  which 
correspond  to  the  hereditary  characteristics  of  the  species.  Thus 
in  the  case  of  a  fertilized  egg,  as  in  that  of  a  parthenogenetic  egg, 
the  great  bulk  of  the  development  is  due  to  the  properties  of  the 
ovum  itself.  The  gemmules  brought  in  by  the  sperm  cell  unite 
with  homologous  particles  in  the  ovum  and  so  composite  particles 
are  produced  which,  as  the  egg  segments  and  develops,  give  rise 
to  cells  that  are  strictly  hybrids  and  which  therefore  exhibit 
variation.  The  ovum  thus  is  the  conservative  element  which 
transmits  the  characteristics  that  have  already  been  acquired. 
The  male  cell  is  peculiarly  that  which  stores  up  the  disturbing 
effects  of  a  changing  environment.  It  especially  leads,  therefore, 
to  variability  in  the  offspring,  to  the  production  of  individual 
differences. 

This  ingenious  hypothesis  enables  Brooks  to  explain  a  great 
variety  of  inheritance  phenomena  and  to  overcome  several  ser- 
ious objections  to  the  unassisted  selection  theory.  Whatever 
truth  there  may  or  may  not  be  in  the  special  ideas  of  the  book,  it 
remains  to-day  a  stimulating  and  suggestive  contribution,  and  it 
is  properly  looked  on  as  one  of  the  factors  that  have  in  recent 
years  focussed  the  attention  of  the  biological  world  on  the  prob- 
lems of  heredity. 

Minor  papers  dealing  with  heredity  and  evolution,  the  causes 
of  variation,  and  the  determination  of  sex,  appeared  from  time  to 
time.  Sections  of  the  "  Foundations  of  Zoology  "  (1899)  show,  too, 
that  Brooks'  interest  in  the  questions  discussed  in  the  "Law  of 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  39 

Heredity' '  remained  active  during  life.  Two  of  his  last  addresses 
(1906-1909)  deal  with  our  concepts  of  heredity  and  variation. 
In  these  he  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  nature  of  an  organism 
is  not  implicit  in  the  egg,  or  in  the  organism  indeed  at_  any  time 
of  its  life,  but  that  it  depends  on  a  continuous  reciprocal  interac- 
tion between  the  organism  and  its  environment.  Such  interac- 
tion leads  in  any  particular  case  to  a  result  which  could  not  be 
calculated  from  a  knowledge,  however  complete,  of  the  egg  itself 
since  it  is  dependent  not  only  on  the  organism  but  on  the  action 
of  the  total  environment.  The  outcome  of  such  interaction  is 
the  production  of  individuals  which  are  never  quite  alike,  although 
they  may  resemble  one  another  closely.  The  occurrence  of  like- 
nesses, or  inheritance,  and  the  occurrence  of  differences,  variation, 
are  thus  not  two  processes  but  two  views  of  the  single  process  of 
reciprocal  interaction.  The  idea  that  they  are  distinct  is  an  error 
into  which  we  fall  through  concentrating  our  attention  at  one  time 
on  the  resemblances,  and  again  on  the  differences  between  individ- 
uals. These  considerations,  he  thinks,  show  the  uselessness  of 
theories  which  postulate  an  inheritance  substance  and  explain 
individual  differences  as  the  result  of  various  combinations  of  its 
particles. 

These  addresses  show  that  Brooks  has  in  some  measure  shifted 
his  standpoint  since  the  time  of  the  "Law  of  Heredity."  He  no 
longer  is  in  a  mood  to  employ  evolution  (determinant)  hypotheses 
to  account  for  development.  He  now  looks  on  the  development 
of  the  individual,  and  that  of  races  also,  as  epigenetic  in  nature. 
What  will  be  the  outcome  of  an  individual  egg  depends  on  the 
interaction  between  egg  and  environment,  not  on  a  determinate 
mechanism  in  the  egg.  The  pre-cambrian  fauna  has  given  rise 
to  the  living  beings  of  to-day.  But  the  latter  were  not  implicit 
in  the  former,  for  with  the  same  ancestors  the  course  of  evolution 
might  have  been  different  had  the  sum  total  of  environmental 
influences  been  different. 

Writings  on  the  Principles  of  Science.19  Brooks  dwelt  often  in 
conversation  and  in  minor  writings,  and  always  with  an  earnest 

19  Professor  H.  V.  Wilson,  University  of  North  Carolina. 


40  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

pleasure,  on  the  nature  and  intellectual  value  of  what  we  can  learn. 
His  thoughts  in  this  field  of  the  principles  of  science  were  event- 
ually embodied  in  his  lectures  on  the  " Foundations  of  Zoology" 
(1899).  This  remarkable  book  "  belongs  to  literature,  as  well  as 
to  science.  It  belongs  to  philosophy  as  much  as  to  either,  for  it  is 
full  of  that  fundamental  wisdom  about  realities  which  alone  is 
worthy  of  the  name  of  philosophy."20 

Brooks  was  distinctly  the  philosophic  type  of  naturalist.  He 
was  fully  informed,  critical,  and  constructive  in  special  fields, 
but  always  aware  that  such  fields  were  merely  parts  of  a  larger 
whole.  Thus  through  the  bent  of  his  mind  Brooks,  the  keen- 
sighted  pioneer,  and  influential  biologist,  was  also  interested  in 
and  in  thorough  sympathy  with  life  and  living  in  all  aspects,  past, 
present  and  future,  intellectual,  emotional,  and  religious.  Per- 
haps for  that  reason,  too,  he  was  a  great  teacher  and  inspirer 
of  men. 

The  " Foundations"  is  essentially  a  discussion  of  the  nature 
of  scientific  knowledge.  It  is  the  wise  talk  of  an  experienced, 
reflective  naturalist  of  ripe  years  addressed  primarily  to  younger 
fellow-workers  in  the  fields  of  science.  The  argument  which  makes 
its  way  through  pages  and  sometimes  whole  chapters  of  illustra- 
tions and  digressions,  interesting  and  suggestive  in  themselves, 
proceeds  about  as  follows : 

Our  only  knowledge  of  nature  is  through  experience.  Through 
experience  we  learn  that  one  sort  of  event  follows  another,  and 
this  sequence,  which  we  come  to  expect,  constitutes  for  us  the 
order  of  nature.  Nevertheless  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
there  is  an  inherent  necessity  in  this  order,  for  we  never  perceive 
the  presence  of  any  intrinsic  causal  connection  between  the  pre- 
ceding event  (cause)  and  the  succeeding  one  (effect) . 

When  our  knowledge  of  any  part  of  nature  has  so  far  developed 
that  we  know  the  order  of  events,  and  so  can  predict  the  later 
steps  in  the  series  of  occurrences,  once  the  earlier  have  been  noted, 
we  say  that  we  understand  and  can  mechanically  explain  that 
particular  set  of  phenomena.  At  present  a  gap  separates  vital 

20  President  D.  S.  Jordan. 


A   SKETCH   OF   HIS   LIFE  41 

from  non-vital  phenomena — to  say  that  life  is  the  sum  of  the 
physical  properties  of  protoplasm  is  to  make  a  dogmatic  assertion, 
although  to  gainsay  it  is  to  make  another.  But  with  the  progress 
of  science  this  gap  may  be  bridged  over  at  some  time.  Should  it 
be  bridged  over,  and  life  in  all  of  its  aspects  be  found  to  be  "  pro- 
toplasmic, "  still  we  should  not  know  why  synthesis  of  compounds 
results  in  an  organism  or  why  a  vital  action  is  the  outcome  of 
protoplasmic  changes.  In  respect  to  organisms  and  vital  actions 
we  should  still  be  where  we  are  now  in  respect  to  simple  gravi- 
tation phenomena,  for  with  respect  to  them  all  that  we  can  say 
is  that  the  stone  will  fall  (if  the  future  be  like  the  past),  but 
why  it  should  fall  we  do  not  know. 

This  being  the  nature  of  our  knowledge,  present  and  future, 
what  should  the  biologist  seek  to  discover,  and  what  are  the 
problems  that  peculiarly  concern  him?  Life  is  defined  as  a 
continuous  adjustment  of  internal  to  external  relations  (Spencer), 
and  it  is  pointed  out  that  synthesized  protoplasm,  even  were  it 
capable  of  nutrition,  growth,  reproduction,  and  contraction, 
would  not  be  a  living  thing  if  it  were  not  also  able  to  maintain 
persistent  adjustment  to  the  shifting  world  around  it.  The 
essence  of  the  living  thing  and  that  which  distinguishes  it  from 
other  forms  of  matter  is  this  very  adjustment.  Fitness,  adaptive 
response,  is  therefore  what  we  should  seek  to  study  in  biology.  The 
mechanism  itself  is  of  subordinate  importance.  Study  it  as  we 
may,  we  cannot  thus  go  far  forwards,  since  our  knowledge  of  nature 
never  includes  a  perception  of  any  necessary  causal  connection 
between  events,  such  as  would  make  it  possible  to  discover  vital 
phenomena  by  reasoning  deductively  from  protoplasmic  pecu- 
liarities. A  corollary  of  practical  import  is  that  the  naturalist 
should  endeavor  to  study  living  things  in  connection  with  their 
environment. 

Biology  being  thus  defined  as  the  study  of  adaptive  response,  the 
nature  and  evolution  of  man's  reason  and  knowledge  fall  within 
its  scope.  For  these  are  conceivably  but  the  outcome  of  adaptive 
responses  in  the  beginning  as  simple  as  the  geotropism  of  a  seed- 
ling's radicle.  The  ability,  for  instance,  to  make  a  distinction 
between  what  in  practical  life  we  call  a  truth,  a  real  occurrence, 


42  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

and  an  error  or  illusion,  is  to  be  looked  on  as  a  useful  response 
that  has  been  acquired  through  selection.  Man's  knowledge, 
then,  is  of  the  peculiar  kind  that  is  useful  to  him.  He  may  not 
yet  know  as  much  as  is  good  for  him,  but  he  at  least  has  acquired 
a  store  of  the  kind  of  knowledge  that  preserves  him  in  the  struggle 
for  existence. 

Viewing  man  thus  from  the  biological  standpoint  Brooks  at- 
tempts to  deal  with  two  human  characteristics,  the  consciousness 
that  the  will  is  free  and  that  the  individual  carries  a  moral  respon- 
sibility. These,  like  all  other  vital  characteristics,  he  thinks, 
may  possibly  sometime  be  shown  to  be  part  of  the  order  of 
nature  and  in  that  sense  mechanical .  "  Rational  action  may  some- 
time prove  to  be  reflex  from  beginning  to  end."  And  yet  in  the 
face  of  this  possibility,  Brooks  would  still  maintain  that  the  will 
is  free  and  moral  responsibility  real.  To  some  this  will  seem  a 
difficult  thesis. 

Underlying  the  scientific  inquiry  as  to  the  character  of  our 
present  knowledge  and  of  that  which  possibly  we  may  acquire 
about  nature,  is  the  metaphysical  question,  "what  is  nature?'7 
This  question  Brooks  does  not  attack  in  the  fashion  of  construc- 
tive technical  philosophy.  He  makes  no  attempt  to  define  reality. 
His  purpose  in  dealing  with  the  matter  is  plainly  the  practical 
one  of  showing  us  what  we  need  not  believe.  He  says  in  effect, 
if  then  our  knowledge  of  all  nature  is  and  will  continue  to  be  of  one 
sort,  viz.,  that  phenomena  follow  one  another  regularly  and 
(supposing  the  future  to  be  like  the  past)  in  predictable  fashion, 
but  without  our  ever  learning  why  they  so  follow  one  another, 
there  is  not  now  nor  will  there  be  in  the  future  any  necessity  drawn 
from  science  to  believe  in  a  fixed,  necessary,  determinate  nature. 
If  in  any  quarter  it  is  imagined  that  the  progress  of  science  neces- 
sitates or  may  necessitate  such  a  belief,  this  is  a  grave  error:  in 
his  own  words,  "The  belief  that  the  establishment  of  scientific 
conceptions  of  nature  shows  that  after  the  first  creative  act, 
the  Creator  has  remained  subject,  like  a  human  legislator,  to 
his  own  laws,  is  based  upon  utter  misapprehension  of  science,  and 
upon  absurd  and  irrational  notions  of  natural  law. "  In  the  second 
place  we  are  in  no  wise  forced  to  believe  by  any  thing  in  science  that 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  43 

protoplasm  and  life  are  necessarily  linked  together:  "  .  .  .if 
it  be  admitted  that  we  find  in  nature  no  reason  why  events  should 
occur  together  except  the  fact  that  they  do,  is  it  not  clear  that  we 
can  give  no  reason  why  life  and  protoplasm  should  be  associated 
except  the  fact  that  they  are?  And  is  it  not  equally  clear  that  this 
is  no  reason  why  they  may  not  exist  separately?" 

The  next  step  in  this  survey  and  analysis  of  fundamental  as- 
pects of  nature  brings  us  to  positive  belief  itself.  As  so  often  said, 
science  quite  fails  to  find  in  matter  and  motion  any  intrinsic 
virtue  which  sustains  and  directs  the  sequence  of  phenomena,  and 
is  absolutely  restricted  to  the  disco  very  of  the  mere  sequence  which 
itself  calls  for  (metaphysical)  explanation.  Hence  there  is  nothing 
in  science  which  has  any  bearing  on  the  causal  origin  or  on  the 
reality  of  anything  in  nature,  and  we  must  go  elsewhere  for  the 
foundations  of  the  belief  that  we  may  entertain  in  respect  to  such 
matters.  Brooks  believes  that  "nature  is  intended "  to  be  as  it 
is,  and  is  a  language  which  a  rational  being  may  read.  Since  the 
rational  being  is  perhaps  himself  a  part  of  nature 's  mechanism,  this 
is  equivalent  to  saying  that  one  part  of  the  mechanism  is  cognizant 
of  the  purpose  that  animates  the  whole.  This  purpose  is  the  effect 
of  a  power,  a  sustaining  and  directing  intelligence  outside  nature, 
to  which  both  the  origin  of  nature  and  its  maintenance  from  day 
to  day  are  due.  It  is  not  something  which  once  for  all  set  a  deter- 
minate cosmos  spinning  along  the  path  of  time  with  a  full  comple- 
ment of  " eternal  iron  laws."  It  is  something  which  is  at  work 
now,  under  every  phenomenon.  This  is  obviously  Brooks'  belief, 
although  being  no  propagandist  he  is  far  from  enforcing  it,  indeed 
leaves  it  in  a  measure  to  be  inferred.  What  he  wishes  to  make 
plain  is  that  science  does  not  tell  us  why  events  happen  a>  we 
learn  they  do,  and  so  it  tells  us  nothing  of  ultimate  reality.  The 
question  why  the  events  we  expect  (from  experience)  should  be 
those  that  come  to  pass  concerns  not  science  but  "the  natural  the- 
ologian; for  it  is  the  same  as  the  question,  What  is  the  Cause  of 
Nature?  To  this  all  must  seek  an  answer  for  themselves;  for 
each  has  at  his  command  all  the  data  within  the  reach  of  any 
student  of  science." 


44  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

LIST  OF  PROFESSOR  BROOKS'  WRITINGS21 

1864 
Do  animals  reason?  Wilkes'  Spirit  of  the  Times. 

1874 
A  feather.  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  April,  1874. 

1875 

On  an  organ  of  special  sense  in  the  lamellibranchiate  genus  Yoldia.  Proc.  Amer- 
ican Asso.  Adv.  Sci.,  Hartford  meeting,  August,  1874,  3  pp.  2  cuts.  Printed 
Salem,  1875. 

Embryology  of  Salpa.  Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol.  18,  November  17,  1875, 
7  pp.,  1  pi.;  also  Monthly  Microscopical  Journal,  London,  July  1,  1876. 

1876 

Embryology  of  the  fresh-water  mussels.     Proc.  American  Asso.  Adv.  Sci.,  Detroit 

meeting,  1875,  3  pp.     Printed  Salem,  June,  1876. 
A  remarkable  life-history  and  its  meaning.     American  Naturalist,  November, 

1876,  16  pp.  17  cuts. 

On  the  development  of  Salpa.     Bull.  Mus.  Comp.  Zool.,  vol.  3,  March,  1876. 
On  the  affinity  of  the  Mollusca  and  Molluscoida.     Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist., 

vol.  18,  February  12,  1876,  pp.  225-235. 

1877 

A  provisional  hypothesis  of  pangenesis.  American  Naturalist,  March,  1877,  4  pp. 
(Abstract  of  paper  read  at  Buffalo  meeting.  American  Asso.  Adv.  Sci.,  Aug- 
ust, 1876). 

Parthenogenesis  in  vertebrates  and  molluscs.  American  Naturalist,  October, 
1877. 

Instinct  and  intelligence.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  September,  1877. 

1878 

Differences  between  animals  and  plants.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  November,  1878. 
The  condition  of  women  from  a  zoological  point  of  view.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly, 
June  and  July,  1879. 

21  Compiled  by  Prof.  E.  G.  Conklin.  Professor  Brooks  made  no  list  of  his 
publications  and  the  following  list  has  been  compiled  from  many  sources  and 
may  not  be  entirely  complete. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS   LIFE  45 

1879 

The  scientific  results  of  the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory,  session  of  1878. 

Baltimore,  Murphy,  1879,  168  pp.,  constituting  part  1,  vol.  1,  Studies  Bio- 
logical Laboratory,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  containing  the  three  following 

papers  by  W.  K.  Brooks : 
Preliminary  observations  upon  the  development  of  the  marine  prosobran- 

chiate  gasteropods;  47  pp.,  1  pi. 
The  development  of  Lingula  and  the  systematic  position  of  the  Brachio- 

poda;  70pp.,  6  pis. 

The  larval  stages  of  Squilla  einpusa  Say;  5  pis. 
The  development  of  the  digestive  tract  in  molluscs.  Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist., 

vol.  19, 1879,4pp. 
Abstract  of  observations  on  the  development  of  the  American  oyster.     Zool. 

Anzeiger,  1879. 
Abstract  of  observations  upon  the  artificial  fertilization  of  oyster  eggs,  and  on  the 

embryology  of  the  American  oyster.    American  Journ.  Sci.,  December,  1879, 

3pp. 
Observations  upon  the  early  stages  in  the  development  of  the  freshwater  pul- 

monates.     Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  1,  1879,  26  pp., 

4  pis. 

1880 

Observations  upon  the  artificial  fertilization  of  oyster  eggs  and  on  the  embryology 
of  the  American  oyster.  Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.,  London,  1880. 

The  biology  of  the  American  oyster.     N.  C.  Med.  Press,  1880. 

The  artificial  fertilization  of  oyster  eggs  and  the  propagation  of  the  American 
oyster.  American  Journ.  Sci.,  1880. 

The  development  of  the  American  oyster.  Maryland  Fish  Commission  Report, 
1880,  101  pp.,  10  pis. 

The  development  of  the  oyster.  Studies  Biol.  Lab.,  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
vol.  1,  1880,  115  pp.,  11  pis.  (Reprinted  from  the  preceding.) 

The  acquisition  and  loss  of  a  food  yolk  in  molluscan  eggs.  Studies  Biol.  Lab., 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  1880,  7  pp.,  1  pi. 

Budding  in  free  Medusae.  ,  American  Naturalist,  1880. 

Embryology  and  metamorphosis  of  the  Sergestidae.  Zool.  Anzeiger,  Jahrg.  3, 
1880. 

Amphioxus  and  Lingula  at  the  mouth  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  American  Natural- 
ist, vol.  13,  1880. 

The  young  of  the  crustacean  Lucifer,  a  Nauplius.  American  Naturalist,  Novem- 
ber, 1880. 

The  development  of  the  squid.  Anniversary  Mem.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  1880, 
21  pp.,  3  pis.,  40. 

The  homology  of  the  cephalopod  siphon  and  arms.  American  Journ.  Sci.,  vol. 
20,  October,  1880,  3  pp.,  1  cut. 

The  rhythmical  character  of  the  process  of  segmentation.  American  Journ.  Sci., 
vol.  20,  1880,  p.  293. 


41)  WILLIAM   KEITH    BROOKS 

1881 

Du  ddveloppement  de  la  lingula  et  de  la  position  zoologique  des  brachiopods.  Arch, 
de  Zool.  Exp.  et  Ge"n6rale,  1881. 

Lucifer,:  A  study  in  morphology.  Proc.  Royal  Soc.,  April,  1881,  pp.  1-3.  (Ab- 
stract.) 

1882 

Origin  of  the  eggs  of  Salpa.  Biol.  Studies,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  2, 

1882,  pp.  301-312,  1  pi. 
Lucifer:     A  study  in  morphology.     Phil.  Trans.  Royal  Society,  London,  vol.  173, 

1882,  80pp.,  11  pis. 

Handbook  of  invertebrate  zoology.    400  pp.,  202  figs.    Boston,  Cassino,  1882. 
Chamisso  and  the  discovery  of  alternation  of  generations.    Zool.  Anzeiger,  Jahrg. 

5,  1882. 
The  metamorphosis  of  Alpheus.     Johns  Hopkins   University   Circulars,  vol.  2, 

no.  17,  1882. 
On  the  origin  of  alternation  of  generations  in  Hydro-medusse.     Johns  Hopkins 

University  Circulars,  vol.  2,  no.  22,  1882;  also  Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist., 

vol.  2,  1883. 
The  metamorphosis  of  Penseus.      Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  2, 

1882;  also  Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol  2,  1883. 

Speculative  zoology.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  December,  1882,  and  January,  1883. 
On  some  methods  of  locomotion  in  animals.     A  lecture  delivered  to  the  employe's 

of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Co.,  Baltimore.     Printed  by  I.  Frieden- 

wald  for  free  distribution  among  the  employes  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 

Railroad  Co.,  20  pp.,  10  cuts,  1882. 

1883 

List,  of  Medusa;  found  at  Beaufort,  N.  C.,  during  summers  of  1880-1881.  Studies 
Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  2,  1883,  pp.  135-146. 

Report  of  the  Chesapeake  Zoological  Laboratory,  summer  of  1882. 

The  law  of  heredity.    Baltimore,  Murphy,  1883,  336  pp. 

Notes  on  the  Medusa;  of  Beaufort,  N.  C.,  II:  Turritopsis  nutricula  (McCrady). 
Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  2,  1883,  pp.  465-475. 

The  first  zoea  of  Porcellana.  Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol. 
2,  pp.  58-62,  pis.  6-7.  (With  E.  B.  Wilson.) 

Alternation  of  periods  of  rest  with  periods  of  activity  in  the  segmentation  of  eggs 
of  vertebrates.  Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  2, 1883,  pp. 
117-118. 

The  phytogeny  of  the  higher  Crustacea.  Science,  vol.  2,  pp.  790-793;  also  New  Zea- 
land Journal  of  Science,  vol.  2. 

Reviews  of  work  on  ccelenterates  in  Weekly  Summary  of  the  Progress  of  Science. 
Science,  vol.  1,  pp.  50,  81,  230,  287,  344,  and  553;  Science,  vol.  2,  pp.  54,  692,  773, 
and  832. 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  47 

1884 

Is  Salpa  an  example  of  alternation  of  generations?    Nature,  vol.  30,  1884. 

On  the  life-history  of  Eutima  and  on  radial  and  bilateral  symmetry  in  hydroids. 

Zool.  Anzeiger,  Jahrg.  7,  1884. 
The  development  and  protection  of  the  oyster  in  Maryland :    Report  of  the  Oyster 

Commission  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  Annapolis,  Maryland;  183  pp.,  7  maps, 

13  pis.,  4a- 
On  a  new  law  of  variation.     Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  4,  no.  35, 

December,  1884,  pp.  14-15. 
A  new  law  of  organic  evolution.     Science,  vol.  4,  1884,  pp.  532-534. 


1885 

On  the  artificial  propagation  and  cultivation  of  the  oyster  in  floats.  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  Circulars,  1885,  vol.  5,  no.  43,  p.  10;  Also  Science,  vol.  6,  1885, 
pp.  437-438. 

Oyster  farming  in  North  Carolina.     Forest  and  Stream,  New  York,  1885. 

Influences  determining  sex.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  January,  1885,  pp.  323-330. 

Can  man  be  modified  by  selection?    Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  May,  1885. 

Abstract  of  researches  on  embryology  of  Limulus  polyphemus.  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Circulars,  vol.  5,  no.  43,  October,  1885,  pp.  2-5.  (With  Adam 
Bruce.) 

Notes  on  Stomatopoda.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  5,  no.  43,  Octo- 
ber, 1885,  pp.  10-11. 

A  note  on  inheritance.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  5,  no.  43,  Octo- 
ber, 1885,  pp.  11-12. 

1886 

Life  on  a  coral  island.  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  October,  1886;  also  Baltimore  Sun, 
August  16,  1886. 

The  anatomy  and  development  of  the  Salpa-chain.  Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  vol.  3,  1886,  22  pp.,  15  cuts.  2  pis. 

Notes  on  the  Stomatopoda.    Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol.  17,  1886. 

Report  on  the  Stomatopoda  collected  by  H.  M.  S.  Challenger.  Challenger  Re- 
ports, vol.  16,  1886,  114  pp.,  16  pis.,  4.° 

The  life-history  of  the  Hydro-medusae :  A  discussion  of  the  origin  of  the  Medusae 
and  of  the  significance  of  metagenesis.  Mem.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol. 
3,  1886,  67  pp.,  8  pis. 

The  zoological  work  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1878-86.  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Circulars,  vol.  6,  no.  54,  December,  1886,  pp.  37-39. 

The  Stomatopoda  of  the  Challenger  expedition.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Cir- 
culars, no.  49. 

Development  and  alternation  of  generations  of  the  Hydro-medusae.  Proc. 
Acad.  Nat.  Sci.,  Philadelphia,  March  3, 1886;  also  Science,  vol.  7,  no.  163. 


48  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

1887 

The  scientific  work  of  Adam  Todd  Bruce — A  sketch.  (In  "Observations  on  the 
embryology  of  the  insects  and  arachnids,"  by  Adam  Todd  Bruce.)  Memorial 
Volume,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press,  Baltimore,  1887. 

1888 

The  life-history  of  Epenthesis  McCradyi,  n.  sp.  Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  vol.  4,  1888,  15  pp.,  3  pis. 

The  growth  of  jellyfishes.  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  September  (pp.  577-588,  7  cuts), 
and  October,  1888. 

On  a  new  method  of  multiplication  in  hydroids.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Cir- 
culars, vol.  7,  no.  63,  February,  1888,  pp.  29-30. 

Note  on  the  ratio  between  men  and  women.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circu- 
lars, vol.  7,  no.  63,  February,  1888,  pp.  30-31. 

1889 

Artificial  propagation  of  sea  fishes.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  July,  1889,  pp.  359,-367. 
A  preliminary  abstract  of  the  researches  of  W.  K.  Brooks  and  F.  H.  Herrick  on  the 

life-history  of  Stenopus.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  8,  1889. 
The  Lucayan  Indians.    Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  November,  1889,  pp.  88-98. 
On  the  Lucayan  Indians.    Mem.  National  Acad.  Sci.,  vol.  4,  no.  10,  1889,  9  pp., 

12  pis. 
What  conditions  are  necessary  for  the  establishment  by  selection  of  a  deaf  variety 

of  the  human  race?    Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Blind,  the  Deaf, 

and  the  Dumb,  etc;  London,  1889. 

1890 

On  the  relationship  between  Salpa  and  Pyrosoma.  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Circulars,  vol.  9,  no.  80,  April,  1890,  pp.  55-56. 

The  structure  and  development  of  the  gonophores  of  a  certain  siphonophore  be- 
longing to  the  order  Auronectae.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol. 
9,  no.  88, 1890.  (With  E.  G.  Conklin.) 

Course  of  reading  for  graduate  and  special  students  in  morphology  at  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  December,  1890, 
p.  37. 

1891 

The  oyster.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Press,  Baltimore,  1891. 
On  the  early  stages  of  echinoderms.     Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  May, 
1891,  p.  101. 

1892 

The  embryology  and  metamorphosis  of  the  Macrura.  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Circulars,  vol.  11,  no.  97,  April,  1892,  pp.  65-72.  (With  F.  H.  Herrick.)  (In- 
troductory chapter  of  the  following  work.) 


A    SKETCH    OF   HIS    LIFE  49 

The  embryology  and  metamorphosis  of  the  Macrura.     Mem.  National  Acad.  Sci., 

vol.  5,  1892,  135  pp.,  57  pis.     (With  F.  H.  Herrick.) 
The  English  plan  for  the  Columbus  Marine  Biological  Station  in  Jamaica.  Letter 

to  New  York  Daily  Tribune,  April  4, 1892. 


The  origin  of  the  organs  of  Salpa.     Abstract  of  chapter  14  of  the  Memoir  on  the 

genus  Salpa.     Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  12,  no.  106,  January, 

1893,  pp.  93-97. 
Aspects  of  nature  in  the  West  Indies.     From  the  notebook  of  a  naturalist.     Scrib- 

ner's  Monthly,  July,   1893. 
The  genus  Salpa.     Memoirs  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1893,  303  pp., 

46  pis.,  4.° 
Salpa  in  its  relation  to  the  evolution  of  life.     Studies  Biol.  Lab.  Johns  Hopkins 

University,  vol.  5, 1893,  pp.  129-212. 
Maryland,  its  resources,  industries,  and  institutions. 

Chap.  7:    Fish  and  fisheries. 

Chap.  8:    The  oyster. 
The  nutrition  of  the  Salpa  embryo.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  January, 

1893,  pp.  97-98. 

1894 

The  origin  of  the  oldest  fossils  and  the  discovery  of  the  bottom  of  the  ocean.     Jour. 

Geology,  July  and  August,  1894;  also  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars, 

January,  1895. 
The  origin  of  the  food  of  marine  animals.     Bull.  United  States  Fish  Commission, 

1894;  The  World's  Fisheries  Congress,  Chicago,  1893,  5  pp. 
Address,  in  proceedings  of  the  convention  to  consider  the  oyster  question,  held  at 

Richmond  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Richmond,  Virginia,  January  12,  1894,  pp. 

33-37. 

1895 

An  old  naturalist— Conrad  Gesner.  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  May,  1895,  pp.  49-59,  12 
cuts. 

A  review  of  Huxley's  essays.    The  Forum,  November,  1895. 

An  inherent  error  in  the  views  of  Galton  and  Weismann  on  variation.  Science, 
vol.  1,  February  1,  1895,  pp.  121-126. 

Can  an  organism  without  a  mother  be  born  from  an  egg?  Science,  vol.  1,  Febru- 
ary 8,  1895. 

The  tyranny  of  the  monistic  creed,  a  review.  Science,  new  series,  vol.  1,  April 
5,  1895,  pp.  381-384. 

The  sensory  clubs  or  cordyli  of  Laodicea.     Journ.  Morphology,  vol.  10, 17  pp.,  1  pi. 

Science  or  poetry.     Science,  vol.  2,  no.  40,  October  4,  1895,  pp.  437-440. 

THE  JOURNAL  OF   EXPERIMENTAL  ZOOLOGY,  VOL.  9,   NO.   1. 


50  WILLIAM   KEITH   BROOKS 

1896 

The  study  of  inheritance.  Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  February  (pp.  480-492),  and  March 
(pp.  617-626),  1896. 

Woman  from  the  standpoint  of  a  naturalist.    Forum,  November,  1896. 

Is  there  more  than  one  kind  of  knowledge?    Science,  April  24,  1896. 

The  origin  of  the  oldest  fossils,  and  the  discovery  of  the  bottom  of  the  ocean. 
Smithsonian  Report  for  1894,  pp.  359-376,  Washington,  1896. 

Logic  and  the  retinal  image.    Science,  March  20,  1896,  pp.  443-444. 

Lyell  and  Lamarck:  A  consideration  for  Lamarckians.  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity Circulars,  vol.  15,  no.  726,  June,  1896,  pp.  75-76.  (Reprinted  from  Na- 
tural Science,  February,  1896,  vol.  9.) 

Lyell.    Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  vol.  15,  no.  726,  June,  1896,  p.  78. 

Budding  in  Perophora.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  January,  1896,  p. 
79.  (With  George  Lefevre.)  (Abstract  of  paper  in  National  Acad.  Sci., 
April  23,  1896.) 

Note  on  anatomy  of  Yoldia.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  January, 
1896,  p.  85.  (With  Gilman  Drew.) 

Zoology  and  biology.    Science,  May  8, 1896,  p.  708. 

The  retinal  image  once  more.     Science,  April  24,  1896. 

Lamarck  and  Lyell:    A  short  way  with  Lamarckians.    Natural  Science,  vol.  9. 

Lyell  and  Lamarckism:    A  rejoinder.    Natural  Science,  vol.  9. 

1897 

The  expedition  to  Jamaica  in  the  summer  of  1897.     Johns  Hopkins  University 

Circulars,  November,  1897. 

Testimony  versus  evidence.     Science,  vol.  2,  no.  49,  December  6,  1897,  p.  771-773. 
William  Harvey  as  an  embryologist.    Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletins,  nos.  77 

and  78,  1897,  20  pp. 
Anglo-Saxon  versus  Graeco-Latin.    Natural  Science,  vol.  10,  no.  63,  May,  1897, 

p.  360. 

1898 

Migration.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  April,  1898,  pp.  784-798. 

Zoology  and  the  philosophy  of  evolution.  Science,  new  series,  vol.  8,  no.  208, 
December  23,  1898,  pp.  881-893. 

1899 

The  foundations  of  zoology.    The  Macmillan  Co.,  New  York,  339  pp. 

Review  of  the  "Wonderful  Century,"  by  A.  R.  Wallace.    Science,  April  7,  1899. 

The  Wonderful  Century— A  Review.    Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  November,  1899,  pp. 

25-31. 

Thoughts  about  universities.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  July,  1899,  pp.  349-355. 
Mivart's  Ground  work  of  Science— A  Re  view.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  February,  1899. 


A   SKETCH    OF  HIS   LIFE  51 

Scientific  Laboratories:  An  address  delivered  at  the  dedication  of  the  biological 
laboratory.  Bulletin  Western  Reserve  University,  October,  1899,  20  pp. 
(Reprinted  in  Bull.  Johns  Hopkins  University,  vol.  10,  no.  104,  November, 
1899.) 

Truth  and  error.     Science,  vol.  9,  no.  213,  January  27,  1899,  pp.  121-126.  _ 

1900 

The  lesson  of  the  life  of  Huxley.     Smithsonian  Report,  1900,  pp.  701-711. 
Review  of  "Marriages  of  the  Deaf  in  America,  by  E.  A.  Fay,  Volta  Bureau,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.,  1898."    Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  January,  1900. 

1902 
Is  scientific  naturalism  fatalism?    Proc.  American  Philos.  Soc.,  vol.  41,  1902. 

The  intellectual  conditions  for  the  science  of  embryology.  Science,  new  series, 
vol.  15,  nos.  377  and  378,  1902,  pp.  444-454,  pp.  489^92. 

1903 

On  a  new  genus  of  hydroid  jellyfishes,  Dichotoma.  Proc.  American  Philos.  Soc., 
vol.  42,  1903,  3  pp.  1  pi.  (Read  April  4,  1902). 

1905 

The  oyster.  A  popular  summary  of  a  scientific  study.  (2d  ed.  revised.)  John 
Hopkins  University  Press,  1905,  225  pp.,  16  pis. 

1906 

Heredity  and  variation,  logical  and  biological.     Proc.  American  Philos.  Soc., 

1908,  7  pp.  (Read  April  20,  1906). 
The  affinities  of  the  pelagic  tunicates,  No.  1 :  On  a  new  Pyrosoma.  Mem.  National 

Acad.  Sci.,  vol.  10,  1906,  5  pp.  2  pis. 
Dipleurosoma  a  new  genus  of  Pyrosoma.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars, 

1906,  no.  5,  pp.  98-99,  2  cuts. 

Evolution.  Article  in  the  "Reference  Hand  book  of  the  Medical  Sciences,"  1906, 
pp.  733-736. 

1907 

Joseph  Leidy.     Pop.  Sci.  Monthly,  April,  1907. 

Joseph  Leidy.     Pioneers  of  American  Science.     American  Museum  of  Natural 

History,  New  York,  April,  1907,  pp.  23-25;  also  in  Anatomical  Record,  No.  5, 

January  1,  1907. 
On  Turritopsis  nutricula  (McCrady).     Proc.  Boston  Soc.  Nat.  Hist.,  vol.  33,  no.  8, 

1907,  pp.  429-460,  pis.  30-35.     (With  Samuel  Rittenhouse.) 


52  WILLIAM    KEITH    BROOKS 

The  homologies  of  the  muscles  of  the  subgenus  Cyclosalpa.     Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Circulars,  195,  March,  1907,  pp.  1-2. 
The  foundations  of  zoology  (2d.  ed.)  Macmillan  Co.,  New  York,  1907. 

1908 

Biographical  memoir  of  Alpheus  Hyatt.     Biographical  Memoirs,  National  Acad. 

Sci.,  vol.  6,  1908. 
The  origin  of  the  lung  of  Ampullaria.     Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington,  Pub. 

102,  1908,  .pp.  95-104,  pis.  1-7.     (With  Bartgis  McGlone.) 
The  pelagic  Tunicata  of  the  Gulf -Stream;  Parts  2,  3,  and  4:     'On  Salpa  floridana, 

the  subgenus  Cyclosalpa,  and  on  Oikopleura  tortugensis,  sp.  nov.    Carnegie 

Institution  of  Washington,  Pub.  102,  pp.  73-94,  pis.  1-8.     (4  with  Carl  Kellner), 
The  province  of  science.     Popular  Science  Monthly,  1908,  pp.  268-271. 

1909 

Are  heredity  and  variation  facts?    Address  at  7th  International  Zoological  Con- 
gress, Boston,  1907;  also  reprinted  as  a  memorial  publication. 

UNPUBLISHED  WORKS 

The  axis  of  symmetry  of  the  ovarian  egg  of  the  oyster.     In  press  1905,  but  still  in 

MS.,  not  published. 
An  extensive  work  on  Salpa. 
Lowell  Lectures. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  isiiue  dtttne  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

MAR  2  ?  1963 

MAR  2  8  1963 

General  Library 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


